EXAMINING THE PRODUCTS OF RESPONSIVE INQUIRY

Many definitions of scientific inquiry emphasize activities—for example, the National Science Education Standards (NSES) defines inquiry as “ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations;” the National Research Council (NRC) lists five actions students take when engaging in inquiry (e.g., “engages in scientifically oriented questions,” “formulates explanations from evidence,” etc.). These definitions lend themselves to curriculum and instruction that foreground activities, ensuring that students are looking at data, formulating explanations, constructing experiments, etc. In contrast, we view inquiry as a process of refining ideas, and scientific inquiry as the more specific practice of refining ideas about natural phenomena as to be increasingly coherent and mechanistic (Hammer & van Zee, 2006). Unlike definitions of inquiry that foreground activities, definitions that foreground ideas suggest that in order to successfully engage a class of students in scientific inquiry, an instructor or curriculum must attend and respond to the substance of students’ ideas. Our interest, as instructors and researchers, lies in responsiveness in the service of inquiry, that is, responsiveness in service of developing students’ own ideas.