In R. W. Bybee (2002)(Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning (pp. 25-35). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

CHAPTER 3

Scientific Inquiry, Student Learning, and the

Science Curriculum
Rodger W. Bybee

Rodger W. Bybee is the executive director of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). Prior to
this, he was executive director of the Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education
at the National Research Council. Author of numerous journal articles and several books, he chaired
the content working group of the National Science Education Standards and was instrumental in
their final development. His honors include the American Institute of Biological Science “Educa-
tion Award” and the National Science Teachers Association “Distinguished Service Award.”

Different disciplines are organized differently and have different approaches

to inquiry. For example, the evidence needed to support a set of historical
claims is different from the evidence needed to prove a mathematical
conjecture, and both of these differ from the evidence needed to test a
scientific theory. (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking 1999, 143)

T he first sentence of this quotation from How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experi-
ence, and School (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking 1999) identifies the major
theme of this chapter, which is that the conceptual structures of science disciplines
and scientific inquiry should have a prominent place in school science programs.
Such a view is consistent with the disciplines of science and supported by contempo-
rary learning theory, but due to complexities such as the culture of schools, high-
stakes assessments, and market-driven textbooks, it is not clearly evident in the sci-
ence curriculum.
Relative to the science curriculum, in this chapter I use the term scientific in-
quiry in three distinct, but complementary ways: as science content that should be
understood; as a set of cognitive abilities that students should develop; and as teach-
ing methods that science teachers can use. The views I present here are consistent
with those of the National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996) and Inquiry
and the National Science Education Standards (NRC 2000).
The following discussion uses what we now understand about student learning
to establish important links between scientific inquiry and the science curriculum.
The chapter begins with a discussion of scientific inquiry. I then describe some re-
lated ideas from How People Learn and apply the discussion of student learning to
our understanding of scientific inquiry and to the design of science curricula. I con-
clude with recommendations for practitioners.

Learning Science and the Science of Learning 25

PA RT 2

Scientific Inquiry
To understand scientific inquiry and its place in science teaching, let us begin by
reviewing some ideas about science and inquiry separately. This discussion sets the
stage for later presentations of student learning and the design of science curricula.

Science
The achievements of science provide us interesting and important explanations about
the world. Science does not and cannot tell us everything, but it does supply depend-
able knowledge that helps us understand the world in which we live. Scientific knowl-
edge is greater than an accumulation of facts and information; indeed, it presents
ideas and concepts that have explanatory power. That is, scientific knowledge often
gives us some understanding of cause-and-effect relationships and the power to pre-
dict and control.
Although science supplies reliable knowledge, that knowledge often challenges
our everyday ideas about reality. For nonscientists, it may be a challenge to under-
stand that all substances consist of tiny particles held together by electrical forces;
that the many materials in our world are made up of different arrangements of a
surprisingly small number of particles; that some diseases are caused by microor-
ganisms invisible to the naked eye; that heritable traits result from combinations of a
chemical code; that all species have descended from common ancestors; and that
huge plates on the Earth’s surface are moving in somewhat predictable patterns.
These and other scientific ideas are expressed by terms such as the particulate
nature of matter, the germ theory of disease, the genome and DNA, the evolution of
life, and plate tectonics. Major ideas such as these and an unimaginable number of
other concepts form a body of knowledge called science. Science teachers have the
dual challenge of identifying which ideas are most important for students to learn
and how to best teach those ideas, given the difference between what students cur-
rently know and understand about their world and the accepted scientific explana-
tions about that same world. In educational terms, these two challenges can be sum-
marized as those of curriculum and instruction—specifically, the content of the
curriculum and the instructional approaches, strategies, and techniques of presenting
that content. But, what about scientific inquiry?

Inquiry
Science is more than a body of knowledge. The concept of science as a way of
explaining the world includes knowledge and explanation and the additional idea
that science has particular ways or unique methods that scientists use. Indeed, sci-
ence is more than a body of knowledge; what we know and even what we mean by
scientific knowledge is a function of the processes by which scientists come to ob-
tain that knowledge. What, to be specific, are the basic elements of those processes
of scientific inquiry? In simple and direct summary, scientific inquiry uses processes
such as observations and experiments that result in empirical evidence about the

26 National Science Teachers Association

 CHAPTER 3

natural world. To be clear, it is not the authority of individuals, the dogma of reli-
gions, the doctrines of governments, or the power of private enterprise that carries
weight in scientific explanations. Rather, it is the power of empirical evidence, criti-
cal analysis, and careful inference derived from observations and experiments that
brings authority to scientific explanations. This is the particular and unique way that
scientists explain the world.
The prevailing misconception of the public, most textbooks, and, unfortunately,
some science teachers is that science is a systematic method that has variations of the
following form: first, state a problem; second, form a hypothesis; third, perform an
experiment; fourth, analyze data; and finally, present a conclusion. As presented in
many science classes, the scientific method is systematic, precise, rigorous, and im-
personal (Bauer 1992).
Some observations serve as counterpoints to the misconception of a scientific
method. At the core of scientific inquiry, one finds observation, hypothesis, infer-
ence, test, and feedback. All of these processes serve the end of obtaining and using
empirical evidence to help answer a scientific question. The scientist begins with an
engaging question based on anomalous data, inconsistencies in a proposed explana-
tion, or insights from observations. After some explorations, the scientist proposes a
hypothesis from which predictions may be deduced through inference. Tests are de-
signed to check the validity of the hypothesis. If the tests confirm the hypothesis the
results are often published, providing feedback to scientists and the scientific com-
munity. Publishing the results is important whether the tests confirm or refute the
hypothesis. Both types of feedback are important in science. If the results do not
confirm the hypothesis, it may be altered, a new one proposed, or the scientists can
stay with the original idea and try another investigation. Although the actual pro-
cesses are not as clear as just stated, this summary provides insights for teachers and
the representation of inquiry in the science curriculum and classroom.
The activity of scientific inquiry is not as tidy as the misconceived scientific
method. It is, however, precise and methodologically appropriate to the discipline,
the available technology, and the specific question being investigated. Data from the
measurements and observations are theory-laden because the original question was
guided by the knowledge and concepts of the scientist. After the original statement
and testing of the hypothesis, scientists often report their results at a scientific meet-
ing, thus providing initial explanations and methods to the community. Further work
elaborates on the original ideas, and subsequent publications provide opportunities
for scientists to evaluate the proposed explanation by replicating the original work or
applying the explanation to new and different problems. Although ideal, this de-
scription at least hints at the complexity and the cyclical nature of scientific inquiry.
The processes of observation, hypothesis, inference, test, and feedback continue all
the time in a less than tidy manner.

Learning Science and the Science of Learning 27

PA RT 2

Student Learning
This section establishes linkages between how students learn and scientific inquiry
in the curriculum.

Learning Is a Basic, Adaptive Function of Humans

As this heading suggests, early in life, children begin perceiving regularity in objects,
organisms, and their environment (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking 1999, xi). They
engage in learning—making sense of their world. One can easily infer that children
have a predisposition to learn, especially in particular domains such as biological and
physical causality, number, space, time, and language. As children attempt to make
sense of their world, they form explanations of phenomena that result in initial con-
cepts that go on to form the basis of their scientific understanding of the world.

Learning Originates in Diverse Experiences

Although learning is a basic, adaptive human function and much of what children
learn occurs through diverse spontaneous experiences and without formal instruc-
tion, when children’s explanations are compared with scientific understanding of
objects, organisms, and natural phenomena, the learners’ explanations are often in-
complete, inadequate, or inappropriate. To state the obvious, at some point these
children become students, go to schools, and enter science classrooms. Important to
this discussion is the fact that these students bring their current conceptions of bio-
logical and physical phenomena with them, and, more important, the students’ cur-
rent knowledge influences the learning process. From a science teacher’s perspec-
tive, students’ current knowledge can be viewed as naive, incorrect, or laden with
misconceptions.
When students are confronted with new knowledge, they often maintain their
current explanations in large part because those conceptions work. From the student’s
point of view they provide personal explanations of phenomena; in short, current
concepts make sense of the world. So, the science teacher is confronted with stu-
dents’ current conceptions that mostly have developed through informal encounters
with phenomena and the contrasting conceptions from the scientific body of knowl-
edge. At the heart of this discussion of science teaching and student learning is the
idea that new concepts develop from challenges to current conceptions, which may
take the form of social interactions, encounters with new and different phenomena,
personal reflection, specific questions from peers and parents, activities that are part
of the science curriculum, and interactions with science teachers.

How Teachers Can Facilitate Student Learning

Teaching for conceptual change and greater scientific understanding requires system-
atic approaches designed to identify students’ current conceptions; challenge the ad-
equacy of current explanations; introduce scientific concepts that are intelligible, plau-
sible, and helpful; and provide opportunities to apply new ideas in a familiar context.

28 National Science Teachers Association

 CHAPTER 3

Students’ learning—that is, the formation of better scientific knowledge—may

occur through the addition of knowledge to current concepts, creation of new con-
cepts, or major modification of current concepts. In any instance, facilitating student
learning requires time and diverse opportunities for students to construct understand-
ings of the world.
Clearly, the contemporary view of how students learn implies content that is
deeper than facts and information, a curriculum that is richer than reading, instruc-
tion that is longer than a lesson, and teaching that is more than telling. In the next
section, I address some of the complex issues of applying a contemporary under-
standing of student learning to the practical issues of curriculum and instruction.

The Science Curriculum

This section addresses two features of the science curriculum—content and instruc-
tion. The discussions complement sections on scientific inquiry and student learning.

Content of the Science Curriculum

Recall the discussion on scientific inquiry. One theme of that discussion was knowl-
edge—specifically, that scientific knowledge presents ideas and concepts in an orga-
nized and systematic way. There is, to use Jerome Bruner’s phrase from the 1960s,
“structure to the disciplines.” This theme has a parallel in the research on expert/novice
learners. One finding has implications for this discussion. In summarizing the question
of how experts’ knowledge is organized and how this affects their abilities to under-
stand and represent problems, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) had this to say:

Their knowledge is not simply a list of facts and formulas that are relevant to
their domain; instead, their knowledge is organized around core concepts or
“big ideas” that guide their thinking about their domains. (24)

Most science curricula used in K–12 education tend to overemphasize facts and
information while underemphasizing major concepts and “big ideas.” The National
Science Education Standards (NRC 1996) provide one example of a set of recom-
mendations that would emphasize major conceptual ideas and fundamental concepts
associated with those ideas for grades K–4, 5–8, and 9–12. One also should note that
the recommendation to emphasize major concepts is consistent with findings from
the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Schmidt, McKnight,
and Raizen 1997; Schmidt et al. 1999).

Organization of Content
Although the National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996) do not represent a
curriculum, the content standards illustrate important features such as emphasis on
major ideas, links to meaningful experiences, and uses that are developmentally ap-
propriate for the learner. For example, Table 1 illustrates content standards that might
be used as major conceptual organizers in a science curriculum.

Learning Science and the Science of Learning 29

PA RT 2

Table 1. Major Conceptual Organizers from the National Science

Education Standards
Grades K–4 Grades 5–8 Grades 9–12

Physical Science
(matter) Properties of objects Properties and changes Structure of atoms
and materials of properties of matter Structure and
properties of matter

(energy) Light, heat, Transfer of energy Conservation of

electricity, and energy and increase
magnetism in disorders

Life Science
(evolution) Characteristics of Diversity and Biological evolution
organisms adaptations of
organisms

(genetics) Life cycles of Reproduction and Molecular basis of

organisms heredity heredity

Earth/Space
Sciences
(Earth systems) Properties of Earth Structures of the Origin and evolution
materials Earth system of the Earth system

(astronomy) Objects in the sky Earth in the Origin and evolution

solar system of the universe

The organization of content illustrated in Table 1 would support learning for

understanding and making sense of experiences. This “progressive formalization”
begins with the informal ideas that students bring to school in the lower grades (K–
4) and gradually helps them develop and perhaps restructure those ideas into formal
science concepts in the upper grades (9–12). Content in a curriculum would be orga-
nized so students build scientific understanding and abilities of inquiry in a gradual
and structured manner during their school years.
Use of the National Science Education Standards and the organization of con-
tent, such as just illustrated, reduces the emphasis on facts, increases the emphasis
on major ideas, and provides focus, coherence, and rigor to the science curriculum.
From a larger view of school science programs, it gives students time to confront and
reconstruct concepts that form the structure of science disciplines. This approach
aligns with prior discussions of a knowledge base for scientific inquiry, is supported
from the perspective of student learning, and provides a positive response to criti-
cisms that the U.S. science curriculum lacks focus, coherence, and rigor (Schmidt,
McKnight, and Raizen 1997; NRC 1999).

30 National Science Teachers Association

 CHAPTER 3

I conclude this section by pointing out that some curriculum materials that align
with the aforementioned characteristics do exist, although they are not widely used.
For example, the BSCS program BSCS Science T.R.A.C.S. at the elementary level
and BSCS Biology: A Human Approach for high school life sciences are two such
programs. Other National Science Foundation (NSF)–supported programs such as
Active Physics, Chemistry in the Community, and Earth Science in the Community
also align with national standards. (See Profiles in Science: A Guide to NSF-Funded
High School Instructional Materials, BSCS 2001).

Effective Science Instruction

Science teaching is a complex process that, at best, combines an understanding of
students, science, and the educational environment as teachers make long-term deci-
sions about the curriculum and instantaneous responses to classroom situations. This
complexity notwithstanding, based on the results of research on learning, there are
some understandings and practices that will make science instruction more effective.

An Instructional Model
Children’s curiosity leads to their informed inquiries into many aspects of the world.
The natural inquiry of children and the more formal problem solving of adults often
follow a pattern of initial engagement, exploration of alternatives, formation of an
explanation, use of the explanation, and evaluation of the explanation based on its
efficacy and responses from others. I will note here that this process of natural in-
quiry is quite similar to the more formal processes of scientific inquiry, as described
in prior sections. The parallel is intended, and in fact, extends to the discussion of
student learning. I quote from a section on knowledge-centered environments in How
People Learn.

An alternative to simply progressing through a series of exercises that derive

from a scope and sequence chart is to expose students to the major features
of a subject domain as they arise naturally in problem situations. Activities
can be structured so that students are able to explore, explain, extend, and
evaluate their progress. Ideas are best introduced when students see a need
or a reason for their use—this helps them see relevant uses of knowledge to
make sense of what they are learning. (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking 1999,
127)

This quotation directs our attention to the research-based recommendation that

activities be structured to allow students to explore, explain, extend, and evaluate
their progress. Note the suggestion that activities are structured to encourage con-
ceptual change and a progressive re-forming of their ideas. This structured approach
to teaching is further justified by the fact that the opportunities and time allow stu-
dents to see relevant uses and make sense of their learning experiences. This discus-

Learning Science and the Science of Learning 31

PA RT 2

sion leads to support for an instructional model, specifically the BSCS 5E model I
have advocated for over two decades (see, e.g., the structure of chapters in Bybee
and Sund 1982; Chapter 8, “Improving Instruction,” in Bybee 1997). Since the late
1980s the 5E model also has been used extensively in BSCS programs. Table 2 sum-
marizes the 5E model.

Table 2. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model

ENGAGE
Engage lessons provide the opportunity for science teachers to identify students’ current
concepts and misconceptions. Although provided by a teacher or structured by curriculum
materials, these activities introduce major ideas of science in problem situations. The theme
here might be—how do I explain this situation?

EXPLORE
Explore lessons provide a common set of experiences for students and opportunities for them to
“test” their ideas with their own experiences and those of peers and the science teacher. The
theme for this phase is—how do my exploration and explanation of experiences compare with
others? Students have the opportunity to compare ideas that identify inadequacies of current
concepts. Here, the theme is—how does one challenge misconceptions?

EXPLAIN
Explain lessons provide opportunities for students to use their previous experiences to recog-
nize misconceptions and to begin making conceptual sense of the activities through the
construction of new ideas and understandings. This stage also allows for the introduction of
formal language, scientific terms, and content information that makes students’ previous
experiences easier to describe and explain. The theme is—this is a scientific explanation.

ELABORATE
Elaborate lessons apply or extend the student’s developing concepts in new activities and relate
their previous experiences to the current activities. Now the theme is—how does the new
explanation work in a different situation?
EVALUATE
Evaluate lessons can serve as a summative assessment of what students know and can do at this
point. Students confront a new activity that requires the understandings and abilities developed
in previous activities. The final theme is—how do students understand and apply scientific
concepts and abilities?

The BSCS 5E model was initially based on and elaborated earlier instructional
approaches (Bybee 1997). It was designed as an instructional sequence primarily for
use at the activity level. Although not originally based on scientific inquiry as dis-
cussed earlier, general connections seem evident. Likewise, connections with class-
room inquiry and the general theme of teaching science as inquiry appear to be clear.

Linking Inquiry and Instruction

The BSCS 5E model takes a curricular perspective, in particular a view that incorpo-
rates what we know about how students learn and accommodates many everyday
requirements of science teaching. For example, the instructional model can be used

32 National Science Teachers Association

 Table 3. Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry and Their Variations along Two Continua

More Amount of Learner Self-Direction Less

Less Amount of Direction from Teacher or Written Material More

Learner engages in Learner poses a Learner selects among Learner sharpens or Learner engages in
scientifically question questions, poses new clarifies question question provided by
oriented questions questions provided by teacher, teacher, materials, or
materials, or other other source
source

Learner gives priority to Learner determines Learner directed to Learner given data and Learner given data and

Learning Science and the Science of Learning

evidence in responding what constitutes collect certain data asked to analyze told how to analyze
to questions evidence and collects it

Learner formulates Learner formulates Learner guided in Learner given possible Learner provided with
explanations from explanation after process of formulating ways to use evidence to evidence
evidence summarizing evidence explanations from formulate explanation
evidence

Learner connects Learner independently Learner directed toward Learner given possible Learner given steps and
explanations to examines other areas and sources of connections procedures for commu-
scientific knowledge resources and forms the scientific knowledge nication
links to explanations

Learner communicates Learner forms reason- Learner coached in Learner provided broad Learner given connec-
and justifies explana- able and logical development of guidelines to use to tions to scientific
tions argument to communi- communication sharpen communica- knowledge
cate explanations tion

Adapted from National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

33
CHAPTER 3
PA RT 2

with thirty or more students; it also incorporates laboratory investigations, educa-

tional technology, cooperative learning, and other strategies. Classroom inquiry has
five essential features as described in Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards (NRC 2000). Those features are summarized as follows:
1. Learners ENGAGE in scientifically oriented questions.
2. Learners give priority to EVIDENCE in responding to questions.
3. Learners formulate EXPLANATIONS from evidence.
4. Learners connect explanations to scientific KNOWLEDGE.
5. Learners COMMUNICATE and JUSTIFY explanations.
Although not a direct and a one-to-one correspondence, the connections among
scientific inquiry, student learning, and the 5E model should be evident. Table 3
presents these essential features and variations of the features as they may appear in
science classrooms.
From the perspective of teacher direction and student self-direction, few, if any,
students will demonstrate the essential features of inquiry when they first experience
scientific investigations. Because of this, science teachers will find practical value
and support for their work in the variations of these essential features as they imple-
ment a curriculum, teach science as inquiry, and work toward a professional goal to
further students’ understanding of science.

Conclusion
This chapter uses student learning, specifically the National Research Council’s report
How People Learn, as a bridge connecting scientific inquiry and curriculum with in-
struction in science. Use of content standards from the National Science Education
Standards and the 5E instructional model were presented as practical ways for science
teachers to incorporate scientific inquiry and apply our understanding of student learn-
ing. Teaching science as inquiry provides opportunities for students to learn fundamen-
tal concepts, develop the abilities of inquiry, and acquire an understanding of science.
Specifically, the following recommendations emerge from this chapter. Practi-
tioners will establish connections between scientific inquiry and enhance student
learning when they:
u Focus on core content, for example, the fundamental concepts articulated in the
National Science Education Standards.
u Use an instructional sequence that supports what we know about student learning,
for example, the BSCS 5E model.
u Create knowledge-centered learning environments that incorporate the essential
features of classroom inquiry, for example, those described in Inquiry and the
National Science Education Standards (NRC 2000).

34 National Science Teachers Association

 CHAPTER 3

References
Bauer, H. H. 1992. Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Chicago, IL: University
of Illinois Press.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R., eds. 1999. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
BSCS (The SCI Center). 2001. Profiles in science: A guide to NSF-funded high school instructional
materials. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Bybee, R. 1997. Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bybee, R., and Sund, R. 1982. Piaget for educators. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
———. 1999. Global perspectives for local action: Using TIMSS to improve U.S. mathematics and
science education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
———. 2000. Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learn-
ing. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., and Raizen, S .A. 1997. Splintered vision: An investigation of U.S.
science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M., and Houang, R. T. 1999. Facing the
consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Boston,
MA: Kluwer Academic.

Learning Science and the Science of Learning 35