Science+Inquiry.+Is+There+Any+Other+Way?

= **3** **Science Inquiry** Is There Any Other Way? Linda K. Jordan =

Inquiry into authentic questions generated from student experiences is the central strategy of teaching science. Teachers focus inquiry predominantly on real phenomena in classrooms, outdoors, or in laboratory settings. . . —National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) Every reader should know that the immediate answer to the question posed in the title is a resounding yes. Science teachers routinely lead students through meaningful investigations using a wide variety of instructional techniques and experience good results. However, since the advent of national standards, the pendulum has switched from an orientation toward how to deliver instruction to an emphasis on student learning (National Science Resources Center, [NSRC], 1997; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). The National Science Education Standards (NSES), in which inquiry is treated as a distinct and unique content area, provides a compelling argument for how learners should be introduced to scientific concepts and ideas. Although inquiry may not be the only way to teach science, many science educators believe that it may be the best way for students to //learn// science. This fundamental belief underscores the premise of Chapter 3. = The Wetlands Connection = As a new and energetic science teacher, I employed every pedagogical skill at my disposal to engage students. In the biology classes, students thrived under my tutelage; however, my level of success was considerably less in a course titled “Chemistry and the Community.” My naive assumption that successful teaching techniques from biology would transfer well to this new course was unfounded. Things went quickly awry. Long before Christmas, to paraphrase James Lovell, I found myself thinking, “ Jordan, we have a problem.” Because many of these students were seniors who had previously taken my biology course, I felt comfortable asking their opinions about how the class was progressing. Their responses were both surprising and annoying. ChemCom, the alternative choice to traditional Chemistry, attracted students who planned to attend college, but not major in science. Consequently, my students were anticipating a less rigorous course, demanding that it be practical and fun, and expecting me to provide the entertainment. Because I never considered myself a rousing entertainer, I was disappointed that they expected me to adopt a teaching style that I found unnatural. Their brutally honest feedback left me with much to ponder over the long holiday break. Despite this time for reflection, I returned to school still searching for inspiration or even divine intervention. Unless something drastic happened, we were all facing business as usual. It was everyone’s good fortune that I received a call from the director of our Community Design  Center. He offered to help me transform the wetland near our middle school into an outdoor learning center. The first step in preparing a wetland master plan, he said, was to complete a plant and animal inventory. Because I lacked the personal time and resources to address this task, I asked him if students could help. He replied that this would be acceptable, as long as the work was completed by a spring deadline. The most logical choice for completing the inventory was my second-year biology class. . . the bad news was that they showed no interest in the project. In desperation, I struck a deal with my ChemCom students. We would move forward with the regular curriculum, but one day a week would be devoted to studying wetlands. As a class, we brainstormed what we should explore and how. Questions arose, and groups self-assembled to analyze soil conditions, examine water quality issues, and complete transects for surveying the plant and animal communities. The plant team eventually identified more than 100 species. The animal group was frustrated with being able to observe only the daytime wetland residents, and they were eager to learn more about the nocturnal inhabitants. A local naturalist taught them how to bait and set appropriate traps. Trapped animals must be released quickly. This required that additional time be spent studying the wetland. The snowball began to gather momentum. Water quality emerged as the most interesting aspect of the project. A team of students tested water before, during, and after its passage through the wetland on its journey to the town creek. Something in the data seemed to be wrong. Water quality was poorer before it entered the mire than when it resurfaced at the other end. Students were convinced that they had made an error. When the tests were repeated, similar findings resulted. The project was scheduled for completion by the last week of school, and the class report was to count as the major part of their semester grade. Knowing that they would be presenting their data to the school board added another dimension to the mounting stress. Tension was running high when I suggested that they compare their water quality findings with those conducted by chemistry classes in previous years. All of the results were consistent. The data were in, but students continued to have little success interpreting the results. On the last day for seniors, I initiated a discussion about conditions at the nearby farm and how wetlands functioned. Because students had yet to associate these two ideas, I was almost ready to help them connect the dots. Suddenly, a student who had not been living up to expectations interrupted and said, “You mean the swamp cleaned up the water that was contaminated by the cattle before it entered the creek?” There were audible sighs of relief. Associations were finally made, and grades were no longer in jeopardy. Almost 20 years later, I recall this event as if it happened yesterday. I realize that if I had asked better questions, students would have been able to make quicker sense of the water quality data. The wetlands project provided me with the crystal-clear revelation that giving students the opportunity to discover answers for themselves represents teaching in its most powerful form. The impetus for inquiry teaching and learning, as evidenced by my students’ wetland encounter, is generally attributed to Schwab, who, in the 1960s, argued persuasively for the supremacy of teaching science through process skills. Schwab (1963) submitted that science should be presented to students and practiced by them in a manner consistent with the way scientists go about their work. Science educators soon realized that Schwab’s recommendations posed serious practical limitations. The consensus was that there need not be a one-to-one correspondence between science as practiced in the laboratory and science as experienced in the classroom. Although student inquiry today is seldom equivalent to original scientific investigation, the approach introduces the unique ways of knowing that characterize the scientific enterprise. Frequently, these central attitudes and dispositions are referred to as the nature of science. Layman, Ochoa, and Heikkinen (1996) reviewed important similarities between practicing scientists and students engaged in inquiry. The reader may notice that many of the tenets of science mentioned by Layman et al. were integral features of the wetland project. ¨  The world is understandable. ¨  Scientific ideas are subject to revision. ¨  Scientific knowledge is durable. ¨  Science cannot provide complete answers to all questions. ¨  Science is inquiry. ¨  Science demands evidence. ¨  Science is a blend of logic and imagination. ¨  Science explains and predicts. ¨  Scientists try to identify and avoid bias. ¨  Science is not authoritarian. ¨  Science is a complex social activity. ¨  There are generally accepted ethical principles in the conduct of science. ¨  Scientists participate in public affairs. So much has been written about science as inquiry that it is impossible to cover the topic fully within this limited space. This chapter summarizes my research and selected thoughts about science as inquiry. I begin by comparing widely accepted definitions of science as inquiry with widespread myths about inquiry. = Misconceptions About Inquiry = According to Colburn (A. Colburn, personal communication, January 2000), “Perhaps the most ambiguous thing about inquiry lies in simply defining the term.” Here is how some of the leading science and educational organizations have described this slippery concept.

National Science Education Standards
Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse way that scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists work. (NRC, 1996, p. 23)

Science for All Americans
Scientific inquiry is not easily described apart from the context of particular investigations. There is simply no fixed set of steps that scientists always follow, that leads them unerringly to scientific knowledge. There are certain features of science that give it a distinctive character as a mode of inquiry. (AAAS, 1989, p. 4)

Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry
Inquiry is an approach to learning that involves exploring the natural or material world that leads to asking questions and making discoveries in search for new understandings (Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry, n.d.).

Council of State Science Supervisors (NLIST Project)
Inquiry is the process scientists use to build an understanding of the natural world based on evidence. Students can also learn about the world using inquiry. Although they rarely discover knowledge that is new to humankind, current research indicates that when engaged in inquiry learners build knowledge new to themselves. ( Council of State Science Supervisors [CS3], n.d.) Contrast these carefully worded descriptions of inquiry with the misconceptions presented in the section below. Note that these ideas were merely cited by these authors and do not represent their personal perspectives on inquiry. Other impressions have been drawn from my own teaching and professional experience. ¨  Inquiry is soft science and is not based on rigorous science content. ¨  Doing hands-on science is the equivalent of doing inquiry (Hall & McCurdy, 1990; Moscovici & Nelson, 1998; Thier, 2001). ¨  Inquiry is an either/or proposition (Rankin, 1999). ¨  There is a clear distinction between science content and science process (Rankin, 1999). ¨  Inquiry involves a step-by-step sequence commonly referred to as the scientific method (AAAS, 1989;, 2002; Bybee NRC, 1996). ¨  Inquiry means asking students lots of questions. ¨  Inquiry requires the teacher to know all of the answers. ¨  Inquiry is unstructured and chaotic (Rankin, 1999; Sumrall, 1997). ¨  Materials and equipment needed to teach science as inquiry are readily available in most K-12 classrooms. ¨  Inquiry is fine for elementary and middle-level students, but high school teachers lack sufficient time to use this approach. ¨  Inquiry is for high-achieving students and does not work with students who have learning disabilities (Colburn, 2000; DeBoer, 1991; Welch, Klopfer, & Aikenhead, 1981). ¨  Inquiry-oriented instruction precludes the use of textbooks or other instructional materials (Haury, 1993). ¨  Inquiry-based learning cannot be properly assessed. ¨  Inquiry is just the latest fad in science education. Despite Llewellyn’s (2002) claim that, “A common thread to (all) organizational recommendations has been the citation of inquiry-based instruction as a central strategy for teaching science” (p. ix), DeBoer (1991) noted that, “There is a considerable discrepancy between beliefs about the importance of inquiry teaching and actual school practice” (p. 209). Perhaps some of the erroneous ideas about inquiry are partially responsible for the gap between theory and practice. In my experience as a professional developer, I have heard many of these ideas expressed by teachers. Despite the general agreement among teachers that inquiry enhances student learning, attitudes and/or beliefs can contribute to a reluctance to implement this approach. Only after inquiry is demystified do workshop participants understand how their prior understanding handicaps or prevents them from moving toward inquiry-based instruction. = NLIST: The Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry = Schwab (1969) maintained that all educational settings consist of four commonplaces: learner, subject matter, teacher, and milieu or context. The Council of State Science Supervisors (CS3) adopted a similar conceptual framework to design their NASA-supported Networking for Leadership and Systemic Thinking (NLIST) project. I selected the NLIST program and their definition of science as inquiry to frame this section because of my work on the project and my belief in the integrity and value of NLIST tools. In developing their materials, NLIST teams drew from the experiences of all of the major reform initiatives and the major science as inquiry projects. The CS3 Web site (www.inquiryscience.com) contains a detailed description of the NLIST Science as Inquiry program. One segment of the NLIST definition states, As a result of participating in inquiry, learners increase their understanding of science subject matter, gain an understanding of how scientists study the natural world , develop the ability to conduct investigations , and develop the habits of mind associated with science. These four essential features of inquiry provide the framework for the Instructional Practices and Instructional Materials scoring guides. NLIST scoring guides are analytical tools that provide a lens with which to assess teaching and curriculum materials for the presence of science inquiry. Such scrutiny can provide an evidence base for modifying instruction or changing curriculum materials to make them more consistent with the features of inquiry. The NLIST project also includes a student self-assessment scoring guide constructed from the following language in another section of the NLIST definition of inquiry: Student inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; using tools to gather, analyze and interpret data, reviewing what is already known in light of the learner’s experimental evidence; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations. This tool generates self-assessment data that students and teachers can use to chart appropriate courses for inquiry-based learning. In essence, the NLIST scoring guides are teacher tools for “inquiring” about their own practice. Teachers can apply scoring guide data to make informed decisions about curriculum and instruction (Fitzgerald & Byers, 2002). For this reason, it is possible and reasonable to think about the goal of moving toward inquiry as a systematic process that can be implemented over time. = Dimensions of Inquiry: All or Nothing? = In an elementary science methods course, one of my colleagues asked prospective teachers to review a collection of science learning activities and rate them according to how well they addressed teaching and learning through inquiry. As a rule, preservice students fall into the either/or camp. In other words, they believe that a learning experience either incorporates full inquiry or is not authentic inquiry. A much different opinion prevails within the science education community. NSES adopted a developmental perspective to describe appropriate levels of inquiry for children at different grade ranges. Their recommendations were based on the premise that prior knowledge, past educational events, and personal dispositions determine what students should be experiencing and how they interpret and learn from these experiences. Some of the important distinctions made in the NSES (NRC, 1996) are the following: ¨  K–4: Students should be provided with opportunities to investigate earth materials, living organisms, and properties of common objects. Children in this age group can apply simple inquiry skills, such as “ask questions, investigate aspects of the world around them, and use observation to construct reasonable explanations for questions posed. . . and communicate about their investigations and explanations” (p. 121). Teachers can expect that children will have difficulty making the connection between experimentation and using evidence to reach conclusions. ¨  5–8: The distinction between full and partial inquiry is introduced. Partial inquiry is when selected abilities and understandings are targeted. Students in this grade range begin to recognize the difference between evidence and explanation. The student’s background knowledge base is the principal influence on the design of investigation, types of observations, and methods for interpreting data. ¨  9–12: The knowledge and experience base is rapidly expanding. At the high school level, students are generally capable of reflecting on the concepts that guide inquiry. Full inquiry is a viable option for high schoolers. Over the past ten years, a spate of articles has been published that examine inquiry in terms of levels, degrees, or along continua (Bonnstetter, 1998; Colburn, 1997; Sutman, Hilosky, Priestley, & Priestley, 1999). Kluger-Bell (1999) described three types of conventional activities: guided worksheet with brief teacher directions, challenge activity with minimal teacher direction, and open with a teacher-led brainstorming discussion. //Structured, guided,// and //open// are the terms Colburn (2000) used to portray the inquiry options. Barman (2002) applied the expression //coupled inquiry// to describe situations where the teacher chooses the question and students design the research procedure. All of these inquiry models share the position that quality science instruction engages students in a broad variety of learning experiences. Thinking experiments, interactions with real-time scientific Internet data, and even thought-provoking lectures can provide equally rich opportunities for applying elements of inquiry. Perhaps the most widely recognized model is the inquiry continuum (Bonnstetter, 1998). Like any well-designed graphic organizer, it has enormous explanatory power. Bonnstetter described five categories of science learning activities ranging from traditional hands-on, through structured, guided, student-directed, and student research inquiry. What distinguishes an activity in terms of inquiry is the relative amount of teacher versus student input and control. After my colleague introduced the continuum to the prospective teachers mentioned earlier, their understanding of inquiry changed considerably. They could easily apply Bonnstetter’s model to characterize an activity according to its level of inquiry and apply the continuum framework to move a lesson toward a higher level of student exploration. Preservice students began to realize that such models provide a framework for general discussions about inquiry. However, artificial constructs are not prescriptions for teaching science, because the nature of inquiry is heavily dependent on the context that surrounds the learner. Schwab 196) advocated science teaching that incorporated historical explanations of how scientific ideas originate. He recommended laboratory investigations of authentic problems that “invite the students to use his information and intelligence in an effort to find the answer” (p. 51). The multiple and varied perspectives on inquiry offered by the NLIST project, the National Science Education Standards, and the inquiry continuum give teachers an expansive range of options for moving toward this kind of science instruction. These reflective self-assessment tools give teachers the means for carefully examining their own practices and provide the evidence needed to move instruction in the direction of inquiry. = Revisiting the Wetland Project =  Reflecting on the past in terms of what is presently understood can be bittersweet. As I look back on the wetland project, I vividly recall the energy and excitement we all brought to the task. I also remember the deep frustration that stemmed from my inexperience with teaching through inquiry. My teacher preparation program did not provide me with good models of inquiry instruction. I stumbled onto inquiry. Most of the decisions I made were based on intuition instead of any deep-seated beliefs or understandings about inquiry. Fortunately, my ideas about teaching and learning continued to evolve, following the adage that experience, combined with reflection, is a prescription for personal growth. Despite its original rocky start, the wetland project continued to thrive. Successive years resulted in the development of the 10-acre site as an outdoor resource for all district students. Collaborations with other high school departments resulted in an interpretive trail guide, removal of exotic species, marked and mulched trails, and construction of elevated boardwalks and activity stations. Because many of these improvements required resources that were not available through the school, students carried out creative fund-raising projects. This project garnered considerable recognition for the school and the students who worked diligently to make this wetland an outdoor study area and a place for the community to enjoy. If I had the opportunity to begin the project anew, my approach would be much different. The following sections present my current thinking about how the wetlands experiment could have been transformed into student learning through inquiry.

Standards
Years ago, no standards existed to guide the selection of student learning experiences or clarify the elements of inquiry. Textbooks and the teacher’s own interests generally dictated what was taught. Teachers in standards-based classrooms begin their instructional planning with a topic in mind, identify the related standards, and develop assessments and lessons that carefully align with these goals for student learning (Audet & Jordan, 2003). Today, the wetland unit would be aimed at standards drawn from the following NSES content areas: inquiry; life science (nutritional relationships, life cycles); physical science (water chemistry, properties of matter); earth and space science (soil composition, water cycle); and standards associated with humans’ impact on the environment.

Assessment
The past 20 years have been revolutionary in terms of how educators assess student understanding. Formerly, teachers were most concerned with constructing tests and quizzes that would accurately measure what kids knew. Today, a variety of methods are used to determine if students have met the standards that are targeted through instruction (Harlen, 1999). The final report that my students generated was a performance assessment, in current educational language. Had the project been implemented now, I would use a backward design approach and develop the assessment soon after selecting the content standards. The task would include a scoring guide that lists all the criteria for measuring student performance (Audet & Jordan, 2003). I would review the assessment with my students prior to beginning the project to ensure that they were clear about the learning expectations. I would also incorporate some aspects of phased assessment in which separate abilities and understandings were evaluated at different stages of the student investigation ( Champagne, Kouba, & Hurley, 2000). The NLIST tools (CS3, n.d.) and NSES Inquiry Standards (NRC, 1996) would direct me toward specific types of evidence to assist in monitoring student performance.

Lesson Design
Much has been discovered about effective instructional planning and design since my original attempt to build a curriculum around this wetland resource. Conceptual change models that are consistent with ideas about how people learn, such as the learning cycle (Llewellyn, 2002) and 5-Es (Bybee, 1997), offer more effective frameworks for structuring the learning environment. My current understanding of the inquiry continuum offers me a more holistic perspective for thinking about alternative levels of inquiry. I have become keenly aware of the importance of building on my students’ prior understanding of and experience with inquiry. This gives me a clearer indication of students’ readiness to exercise greater control over their own learning. Questions occupy the core of inquiry. However, “Many of the questions children ask spontaneously are not profitable starting points for science” (Jelly, 1987, p. 47). Participating in the Exploratorium’s Institute for Inquiry improved my understanding of how to generate and answer researchable questions. Brainstorming generates a broad range of possibilities. It is important to narrow this sample to questions that students can reasonably be expected to answer and to those that promote deeper understanding of a concept after the investigation has been completed. In the wetland experience, my students’ questions were initially all over the lot (no pun intended). Too much time was spent following potential lines of investigation that proved to be unrealistic or impractical. For example, students were very curious about transients who visited during the evening. There was evidence that more than just rodents trespassed at night, but we had to limit ourselves to what could actually be verified. Another group wanted the investigation to include birds, but bird populations are notoriously difficult to track. Today, we could access projects such as the Cornell Project FeederWatch Web site for information about monitoring wetland bird populations (www.birds.cornell.edu/pfw/news/feedercam/).

Technology
The opportunities that would have been afforded to my students by embedding modern technological tools into the wetland study are mind-boggling. Instead of test kits, we would use electronic probes to monitor water quality. We would pinpoint and record the exact location of the plant and animal populations with handheld GPS units. Returning to the lab, we would enter GPS coordinates on a spreadsheet, plot the data, and investigate the same information using our GIS software. Students would conduct much of their research on the Internet and use a word processing program for the final report. I imagine that they would prepare a PowerPoint presentation for the school board and display it with a computer projector or a Smart Board. This is just a small sampling of the amazing array of technological tools that is currently available to support K-12 student inquiry.

Safety
No conversation about science as inquiry is complete without discussing the responsibility teachers have for providing a safe learning environment. Inquiry, standards, and safety form what I refer to as an “essential partnership” (Figure 3.1) that drives student learning in the science classroom. Inquiry provides the instructional (OK. KEEP) standards offer guidelines for selecting content, and proper attention to safety establishes the necessary classroom preconditions. ** [INSERT FIGURE 3.1 ABOUT HERE] ** The National Science Education Teaching Standards (NRC, 1996) most relevant to the essential partnership are included in Standard D: Teachers of science design and manage learning environments that provide students with the time, space, and resources needed for learning science. . . . To meet this standard, teachers are expected to create a setting that is flexible and supportive of science inquiry, and ensure a safe working environment. (p. 43) The NSES recommendations illustrate the importance attached to both inquiry and safety as the principal ingredients of science instruction. The National Science Teachers Association’s Position Statement on Safety (2000) and recent safety publications (Kwan & Texley, 2002; Texley, Kwan, & Summers, 2004) implicitly reference this “essential partnership.” Kwan and Texley’s framework embeds safety within the context of a standards-based classroom in which there is a commitment to science as inquiry. The authors state that today’s students need hands-on experience in science more than ever. . . . We can still provide the investigative and observational activities that are essential to helping students understand the content and methods of science. . . that produce the “Aha!” so essential to engendering true understanding and love of the scientific endeavor. . . in a safe learning environment. (p. vi) The NRC (2000) offers an important caveat about using inquiry to guide student learning. It cautions that, “cost or safety concerns might weigh against doing a particular investigation. . . not all investigations are worth pursuing” (p. 132). Fortunately, such decisions are assisted by an abundance of online and print lab safety resources. Some of the more popular science safety Web sites are NSTA (www.nsta.org); Council of State Science Supervisors (www.cs3.org); American Chemical Society (www.acs.org); Laboratory Safety Institute (www.labsafety.org); JaKel, Inc. (www.netins.net/showcase/jakel); and Flinn Scientific (www.flinnsci.com). = Challenges of Teaching and Learning Through Inquiry = According to the National Science Education Teaching Standards (NRC, 1996), teachers of science should ¨  Structure the time available so that students are able to engage in extended investigations ¨  Create a setting that is flexible and supportive of science inquiry ¨  Ensure a safe working environment ¨  Identify and use resources outside the school ¨  Engage students in designing the learning environment ¨  Make the available science tools, materials, media, and technological resources accessible to students Arguably, even the most ardent supporters of standards would concede that achieving these goals demands a sustained commitment. After his review of the literature on inquiry, Anderson (1999) concluded that “barriers associated with putting inquiry ideas into practice were closely associated with teachers’ basic values and beliefs about teaching and learning” (p. 17). Anderson also believed that successful changes in instruction require substantial professional development. Other science educators have reservations about wholesale and rapid changeovers to inquiry-based classroom practice and expressed the following concerns: ¨  Scientific inquiry is not as tidy as the frequently referenced process of scientific method (Bybee, 1997). ¨  Success with inquiry demands developmental readiness (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). ¨  Past experience influences how students react to inquiry (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Osborne and Freyberg (1985) suggested that “within very broad developmental categories and ability-related limits, children will process information differently according to their experiences rather than their age” (p. 85). ¨  There is a tendency to overemphasize process over content (DeBoer, 1991). Conversely, pressures associated with preparing students for the next grade level and doing well on standardized tests shift the emphasis toward content (Collette & Chiapetta, 1994). ¨  Discovery learning takes more time than teaching through transmission (Koballa & Tippins, 2004). ¨  Many teachers are uncomfortable with open-ended investigation because it generates unpredictable and varied student questions (Collette & Chiapetta, 1994). ¨  Students left to discover information for themselves might reach erroneous conclusions (Collette & Chiapetta, 1994). ¨  Working in an inquiry-based setting creates new types of classroom management issues (Collette & Chiapetta, 1994). ¨  Teachers may have difficulty obtaining the necessary materials and equipment (Collette & Chiapetta, 1994). ¨  Developing a safe learning environment can exert considerable demands on material resources (Kwan & Texley, 2002). Instances abound in which such obstacles to implementing inquiry have been successfully overcome. The rewards for persevering have been significant. Anticipating and addressing challenges in advance is key to overcoming the hurdles that teachers encounter as they move toward inquiry. For prospective teachers, this probably will require substantive changes to the preservice program. Both novice and experienced teachers will need high-quality professional development. Success with science as inquiry will demand unwavering commitment to this approach and a full awareness of the relevant educational research. Administrative and collegial support, as well as access to community and grant resources, may be needed to obtain appropriate materials and equipment. As with my wetland example, the answer to most major teaching conundrums can be found when a teacher possesses the same habits of mind that we seek to encourage in students: curiosity; openness to new ideas; and a healthy, informed skepticism (AAAS, 1989). = Ideas From the Field: Alien Invaders = This is an inquiry-based middle school unit on invasive species. This problem is second only to habitat destruction in terms of its threat to biodiversity and economic impact. The problem of invasives is global in scope and expanding rapidly as the spatial and geographic boundaries that once separated natural populations continue to weaken and fall. // Invasion Ecology // (Krasny, 2003) offers an outstanding set of activities that incorporates inquiry. The book’s ecological approach offers a cross-disciplinary perspective that addresses all science areas. Many of the ideas in this 5E learning cycle (Bybee, 1997) were drawn from this book. Portions of the unit can be adapted for elementary and secondary school students. The materials include both laboratory and field components. Fall is a great season to conduct these lessons because so many fruits and seeds ripen at this time of year. Our current awareness of this global problem makes this topic ideally suited for inclusion in wetland projects.
 * Figure 3.1:** The Essential Partnership

//Engage: Hitchhikers Beware//
A simple question like, “How do seeds spread from place to place?” can serve as a great launching pad for guided student inquiry. Use a silent demonstration for this engagement. Students observe you displaying seed specimens and later describe the exact steps completed during your demonstration. Select fruits and seeds that have fairly obvious adaptations for spreading seeds. The maple samara, dandelion, touch-me-not, acorn, blueberry, and burdock are excellent examples. After the demonstration, a set of focusing questions can guide children to identify the salient elements of seed dispersal and generate ideas about how such features benefit plants. Students enter a summary statement in their science notebooks based on their prior understanding of seeds and insights triggered by this demonstration to consider the relationship between form and function.

//Explore: Designer Seeds//
In this guided discovery activity from the Access Excellence Web site, students use their prior knowledge to design, build, and test wind-dispersed “seeds.” They test their seed’s dispersal potential by dropping it in front of a fan and recording the distance traveled. Different design features are evaluated and then compared with properties that contribute to seed spreading in nature. The complete lesson is available at www.accessexcellence.com/AE/AEC/AEF/1995/taylor_seeds.html.

//Explain: Deadly Plant Invaders//
Science teachers can draw from the following resources to prepare an inquiry-based instructional plan that targets the essential information needed to understand the invasive species problem. ¨  The National Park Service offers an interactive simulation called //The Deadly Plant Invaders Game// that enables student to grasp the fundamental ecological issues associated with nonnative plants (www.nps.gov/piro/lp05.htm). ¨  // America //// ’s Least Wanted: Alien Species Invasions of //// U.S. //// Ecosystems // (www.conserveonline.org/2001/06/s/amleast) is a terrific reading that gives a comprehensive overview of the problem. ¨  Two videos devoted to invasive species are available free to school libraries: Bill Nye’s //Aquatic Invaders// (www.sgnis.org/av/video/aquatic.htm) and //Plants Out of Place// (ecoservices@dnr.state.mn.us). ¨  The Nature Conservancy offers a compendium of materials called //Invasives in Your Backyard// ( [|nature.org/initiatives/invasivespecies/features/] )//.//

//Extend: Invaders in Our Midst//
The teacher searches the Internet for invasive plant lists for his or her state or region. Selected pictures are downloaded to prepare a laminated identification sheet (preferably in color) for each student (www.blm.gov/education/weeds/hall_of_shame.html has an example). Ask students to scour their neighborhoods for instances where alien plants have gained a foothold. Create a Local Invasive Species Sightings sheet in which students can record information about plant species, location, description of the site, approximate size of area affected, and so on. Have students describe their findings to the class and post their sightings on a community map in specific locations where they were discovered. After sufficient time has elapsed, have students summarize their findings in their science notebooks. Another great extension activity, //Unwanted Travel Partners,// accompanies a program from the Scientific American Frontiers series called //The Silken Tree Eaters.// Students simulate an alien invasion by studying population changes that occur after an //Elodea// sprig is added to a tube of sterile water (www.pbs.org/saf/1204/teaching/menu.htm).

//Evaluate: Let’s Take Action//
Ask the class to prepare a community awareness campaign aimed at reducing the incidence and local impact of invasive species. The performance assessment can involve preparing brochures, editorials, maps, videos for local cable programs, jingles, petitions, bumper stickers, wanted posters, commercials, and so on. A scoring guide with clear expectations for students should accompany the evaluation. Be sure that the guidelines for the task require that students provide evidence that demonstrates a clear understanding of the science content associated with this topic.

//Literacy Connections//
¨  // Kudzu: The Vine to Love or Hate // (Hoot & Baldwin, 1996) describes the impact of this nasty invader from Japan on the habitat of the southern United States. ¨  // Hawaii’s Natural Forests // explains the threat to Hawaii posed by alien plants from around the world (Orr & Boynton, 2000). ¨  // When Animals and Plants Invade Other Ecosystems // (Batten, 2003) offers thought-provoking descriptions of how ecological balances are threatened by the accidental or intentional introduction of organisms such as the gypsy moth. = References = American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). //Science for all Americans.// New York : Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1995). //Benchmarks for science literacy.// New York : Oxford University Press. Anderson, R. A. (1999). Inquiry in the everyday world of schools. //Focus,// //6//(2), 16–17. Audet, R. H., & Jordan, L. K. (2003). //Standards in the classroom: An implementation guide for teachers of science and mathematics.// Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin. Barman, C. R. (2002). How do you define inquiry? //Science and Children, 39//(10), 8–9. Barman, C. R., Stein, M., Barman, N. S., & McNair, S. (2003). Students’ ideas about plants. //Science and Children,// 46–51. **[AU: Ref. not cited. Cite or delete?] DELETE** Batten, M. (2003). //When animals and plants invade other ecosystems.// Atlanta, GA : Peachtree Press. Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS). (1993). //Developing biological literacy.// Dubuque, IA : Kendall/Hunt. **[AU: Ref. not cited. Cite or delete?] DELETE.** Bonnstetter, R. J. (1998). Inquiry: Learning from the past with an eye on the future. //Electronic Journal of Science Education.// Retrieved July 6, 2004, from unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). //How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.// Washington, DC : National Academy Press. **[AU: Ref. not cited. Cite or delete?] CITED** Bybee, R. W. (1997). //Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices.// Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann. Bybee, R. W. (2002). //Learning science and the science of learning.// Arlington, VA : NSTA Press. **[AU: Ref. not cited. Cite or delete?] CITED** Champagne, A. B., Kouba, V. L., & Hurley, M. (2000). Assessing inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), //Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science// (pp. 456–461). Washington, DC : American Association for the Advancement of Science. **[AU: Please provide chapter title.]** Colburn, A. (1997, Fall). How to make lab activities more open ended. // California //// Science Teachers Association Journal, // pp. 4–7. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. //Science Scope,// //23//(3), 42–44. Collette, A. T., & Chiapetta, E. L. (1994) //Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools.// Columbus, OH : Merrill. Council of State Science Supervisors (CS3). (n.d.). http://www.inquiryscience.com/ DeBoer, G. E. (1991). //A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice.// New York : Teachers College Press. Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry. (n.d.). http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/ Fitzgerald, M. A., & Byers, A. (2002). A scoring guide for selecting inquiry-based activities. //Science Scope, 25//(9), 22–25. Hall, D. A., & McCurdy, D. W. (1990). A comparison of a Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) laboratory and a traditional laboratory on student achievement at two private liberal arts colleges. //Journal of Research in Science Teaching,// //27//(7), 625–636. **[AU: Ref. not cited. Cite or delete?] DELETE** Harlen, W. (1999). Assessment of science inquiry. In //Foundations, Volume II: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education: Inquiry, thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom// (pp. 99–107). Arlington, VA : National Science Foundation. Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. //ERIC CSMEE Digest,// ERIC Document No. ED 359048. Hoot, H., & Baldwin, J. (1996). //Kudzu: The vine to love or hate.// Kodak, TN: Suntop. Jelly, S. (1987). Helping children to raise questions—and answering them. In W. Harlen (Ed.), //Primary science// (pp. 47–57). Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann. Kluger-Bell, B. (1999). Recognizing inquiry: Comparing three hands-on teaching techniques. In //Foundations, Volume II: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education: Inquiry, thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom// (pp. 39–50). Arlington, VA : National Science Foundation. Koballa, T. R., & Tippins, D. J. (2004). //Cases in middle and secondary science education.// Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Prentice Hall. Krasny, M. E. (2003). //Invasion ecology.// Arlington, VA : NSTA Press. Kwan, T., & Texley, J. (2002). //Exploring safely: A guide for elementary teachers.// Arlington, VA : NSTA Press. Layman, J. W., Ochoa, G., & Heikkinen, K. (1996). //Inquiry and learning: Realizing science standards in the classroom.// New York : College Entrance Examination Board. Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), //Handbook of research on science teaching and learning// (pp. 94–128). New York : Macmillan. **[AU: Ref. not cited. Cite or delete?] DELETE** Llewellyn, D. (2002). //Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science.// Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin. Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H. (Eds.). (2000). //Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science.// Washington, DC : American Association for the Advancement of Science. **[AU: Ref. not cited. Cite or delete?] DELETE** Moscovici, H., & Nelson, T. H. (1998). Shifting from activitymania to inquiry. //Science and Children,// //35//(4), 14–17, 40. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). //National science education standards.// Washington, DC : National Academy Press. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). //Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning.// Washington, DC : National Academy Press//.// National Science  Resources  Center (NSRC). (1997). //Science for all children.// Washington, DC : National Academy Press. **[AU: Ref. not cited. Cite or delete?] CITED** National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2000). //NSTA position statement on safety.// Arlington, VA : Author. Orr, K., & Boynton, D. (2000). // Hawaii //// ’s natural forests. // Waipahu, HI : Island Heritage. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). //Learning in science.// Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann. Rankin, L. (1999). Lessons learned: Addressing common misconceptions about inquiry. In //Foundations, Volume II: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education: Inquiry, thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom// (pp. 71–77). Arlington, VA : National Science Foundation. Schwab, J. J. (1963). //Biology teachers’ handbook.// New York : Wiley. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. //School Review,// //78,// 1–23. Schwab, J. J., & Brandwein P.F. (1962). //The teaching of science.// Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. **[AU: Ref. not cited. Cite or delete?] DELETE** Sumrall, W. J. (1997). Why avoid hands on science? //Science Scope, 20//(1), 16–19. Sutman, F. X., Hilosky, A., Priestley, W. J., & Priestley, H. (1999, March). //Defining inquiry oriented laboratory instruction during professional enhancement experiences using the inquiry matrix.// Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research into Science Teaching, Boston. Texley, J., Kwan, T., & Summers, J. (2004). //Investigating safely: A guide for high school teachers.// Arlington, VA : NSTA Press. Thier, H. D. (2001). //Developing inquiry-based science materials: A guide for educators.// New York : Teachers College Press. Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., & Aikenhead, G. E. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: An analysis and recommendations. //Science Education, 65//(1), 33–50.