week+2b+discussion

calendar

=week introduction= 
 * According to the Michigan High School curriculum, students are asked to “understand the nature of science and demonstrate an ability to practice scientific reasoning by applying it to the design, execution, and evaluation of scientific investigations.” (MI HSCE, Earth Science) Given this charge, it is evident that scientific inquiry is an integral part of teaching science. ||

overarching question According to the Michigan High School curriculum, students are asked to “understand the nature of science and demonstrate an ability to practice scientific reasoning by applying it to the design, execution, and evaluation of scientific investigations.” (MI HSCE, Earth Science) Given this charge, it is evident that scientific inquiry is an integral part of teaching science.

Written by Michele:  The term “inquiry” has come to have many different meanings. The type of resources a teacher uses as a guide and/or the type of professional development they have done can be a contributing factor to this definition. What does inquiry mean to you? Based on your definition, what does/should inquiry look like in your classroom?
 * sub-discussion 1**

Michele's second topic: William Kyle makes a distinction between inquiry in general and the learning process. He states “students should not be led to believe that they are performing scientific inquiry when in fact they are learning.” Are teachers truly asking students performing scientific inquiry in the classroom?
 * sub-discussion 2 **

Michele's third topic: Rutherford contends that the teaching of science as inquiry is used in two general ways:
 * sub-discussion 3**

a. Inquiry is a part of the science content b. Inquiry is a strategy for bringing about the learning of science content

Of the two, should teachers emphasize one more than the other or should they be given equal weight as they prepare their lessons? There is a commonality among the four articles and that is inquiry. It seems that educators have been working for quite some time to come up with a working definition of inquiry in the classroom. NSES has made the distinction between; inquiry-based teaching and learning, inquiry in a general sense and inquiry as practiced by scientists.

some quotes taken

The Role of Inquiry in Science Teaching, by F. James Rutherford, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964 "...From this there follows an inescapable conclusion regarding the feasibility of teaching science as inquiry: science teachers must come to understand just how inquiry is in fact conducted in the sciences. Until science teachers have acquired a rather thorough grounding in the history and philosophy of the sciences they teach, this kind of understanding will elude them, in which event not much progress toward the teaching of science as inquiry can be expected." (p 84)

**sub-discussion 1** **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Written by Michele: ** **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">The term “inquiry” has come to have many different meanings. The type of resources a teacher uses as a guide and/or the type of professional development they have done can be a contributing factor to this definition. What does inquiry mean to you? Based on your definition, what does/should inquiry look like in your classroom? **

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;"> Prior to reading this weeks papers, I would say inquiry is asking questions and seeking answers. William Kyle's paper really delves into the various definitions of inquiry. Out of my 'thematic' experiences, I'm on the side of Shuchman, 1961, that inquiry is individualized and self-paced, where they have freedom in a responsive environment asking questions relevant to them. I am also on the side of Sund and Trowbridge, 1973, where inquiry is an arranged learning environment in order to facilitate student-centered instruction. After reading Kyle's paper though, I realize I need to rethink how I'm defining inquiry, where I'm only invoking science learning. Scientific inquiry is a level above experiments I do in the classroom.
 * my comment**

"...there follows an inescapable conclusion regarding the feasibility of teaching science as inquiry: science teachers must come to understand just how inquiry is in fact conducted in the sciences. Until science teachers have acquired a rather thorough grounding in the history and philosophy of the sciences they teach, this kind of understanding will elude them, in which event not much progress toward the teaching of science as inquiry can be expected." (Rutherford, 1964)

I also appreciated the article by Schauble, et al., 1991 with their distinction of engineering inquiry and science inquiry. My direct exposure to science is in engineering, so I'll need to take this all in, realizing there is this distinction. The method explained describes a unique situation with one or two researchers per student. In a real classroom, the ratio is considerably different.

In my classroom, I want students to be inquisitive. As noted in all papers, not all students will want to think critically or plan to become scientists. When I was teaching thematics, students assisted generating the theme, getting them invested. Team teachers met weekly developing the thematic. Creativity in developing the curriculum led the excitement towards learning. We had questions which is general inquiry. The scientific method was practiced, though on reflection, this was still science learning and not science inquiry.

I have to re-think my perception of inquiry.

I'll be the first to admit that my concept of inquiry is not firm. When I think I have got it, I read an article like the one I read last week in the Nov. issue of Science Education.
 * Bill's comment**

That said, inquiry should be a simple investigation carried out to answer a simple question (like: which freezes first, hot water or cold water? or can every positive integer can be written as the sum of at most four squares?).

But, does doing that really illustrate what science is about? Maybe science and math teachers really can't achieve the "ideal of inquiry" with students in the classroom.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Inquiry is not a new word. I’ve been hearing this word and learning about inquiry for more than a decade. I’ve participated in workshops, trainings, multi-week long experiences in an effort to grasp its meaning. It has been a challenge to develop my own understanding of what inquiry involves and how to effectively use it in the classroom. I always tried to be a “hands-on” science teacher who actively involves students in the learning process. Over the years I have discovered that “hands-on” science is not effective unless it also involves “minds-on.” “Inquiry” is defined as “seeking for truth, information, or knowledge—seeking information by questioning.” (Thirteen ed online) My definition of inquiry begins with questions. Students are naturally curious and seek to understand how the world works. Inquiry is asking questions in order to gain new scientific knowledge or understanding. Rutherford seeks to clarify the idea of “teaching science as inquiry.” He states that inquiry is both content and a process. To understand science, content and process must be kept together. If they are separated, the student will miss the point and not understand either one.
 * Michele's comment**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Inquiry is not following the steps of the scientific method. Nor is there just one way to use inquiry in the classroom. It is the individual interpretation of the definition of inquiry that will determine how much or how little inquiry is used in the classroom. The teacher who has developed a deep understanding of inquiry over time will be able to use provide learning experiences in his or her classroom that help students to understand scientific concepts, as well as an understanding of the nature of science. “In order for inquiry to be effective, a teacher must lay a foundation in which students can begin to take more responsibility for their own learning.” (NSF, 1999) Inquiry in the science classroom can be the type that is highly structured by the teacher. In this case, students proceed toward a known outcome. On the other hand, inquiry investigations can be free-ranging. Students seek answers to their own questions with little direction from the teacher. My students are exposed to different levels of inquiry. At the beginning of the year, I give them five white beads on a bracelet and ask them to make observations. Over the next 24 hours they discover that their beads will change color and begin to ask questions. This leads to investigations to discover the factors that cause the beads to change. Finally, students discuss their results and draw conclusions.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">I see this month's The Science Teacher has a lead article called "A Template for Open Inquiry". "Open" implies there must be other, less open, inquiries; and indeed there are. They list confirmation inquiry, structured inquiry, guided inquiry, and open inquiry and cite an article (Bell, Smetana, and Binns, 2005) from an earlier edition of The Science Teacher. I don't recall reading that article.
 * Bill's comment**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> I wonder if Kyle would recognize these distinctions as falling into his inquiry - scientific inquiry dichotomy?

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> [Just read the intro to the Bell, Smetana, & Binns article. They state this, "At its heart, inquiry is an active learning process in which students answer research questions through data analysis" (p 31). I can sort of agree with this, but then they go on to delineate the "levels" and this seems to be something that Kyle would be very skeptical about. What about Kessen and/or Rutherford?

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**Michele's comment** One of the articles that I am reading for my thesis discusses the article by Bell and his colleagues. The article is written by Eric Pyle and is called, “A Model of Inquiry for Teaching Earth Science.” (2008) The article describes key aspects of inquiry has having four levels. I couldn’t help think about the similarities between the four levels and the “Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry and Their Variations.” (NRC, 2000) Both are similar in the idea that they progress from less learner self-direction to more.

I’m not sure if Rutherford would be skeptical of these levels or not. He is very adamant about the idea that science content and process go hand-in-hand. Rutherford believes that students should first develop an operational definition of a topic then design investigations. “To separate conceptually scientific content from scientific inquiry is to make it highly probable that the student will properly understand neither.”

want to explore the distinction between the engineering inquiry verse the scientific inquiry (as well as the others Bill mentioned). For one of my jobs at Tech, I had the wonderful opportunity to listen to what some researchers are doing at Tech. Reflecting on the presentations, the validity that content must be taught prior to exploring and understanding current research becomes evident, yet the overarching goals are exciting.
 * my comment**

Julie King, Chemical Engineering -adding electrical/thermal fillers to polymers http://diversity.mtu.edu/Documents/PCA/PCA_JulieKing.pdf

Megan Frost, Biomedical Engineering -sensor implants that mediate bioresponse (release of nitric oxide into the blood helps prevent blood clots) http://diversity.mtu.edu/Documents/PCA/PCA_MeganFrost.pdf

additional presentations: http://diversity.mtu.edu/PCA_DineDiscover.php

Inquiry is simply asking questions. Inquiry is also asking about solutions to problems.

In the end, what are we really talking about? How can we get students to want to learn about science? justify science? the process of science? help future citizens to make educated decisions? I feel the goal is for students to understand science in a manner that opens their eyes to the possibilities. Asking questions is always the beginning. Testing for answers to those questions falls into a process, for which ever field dictates. Then coming to conclusions for other researchers to test and critique.

As we bring this back to education research, the first step is asking a bunch of questions. We don't even have to write formal papers to distinguished journals. We simply have to explore better ways of reaching our students to the imagination, to have dreams of a better future, to have the skills and know how to aspire, to know how to learn on their own. Science is not boring. How to convey this to ALL students is our challenge.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">The engineering examples sited bring up an important point. Scientists inquire and the focus of their inquiry is "why?". Engineers inquire, but the focus of their inquiry is "how?" In Michigan, the focus of the inquiry curriculum is "scientific inquiry", although I am not sure most teachers understand the difference.
 * Bill's comment**

Note that I read an early draft of the national "common core" science curriculum that makes a huge attempt at integration (STEM) and incorporates engineering process into the curricular mix. When I read it, I said wow!, this is a great attempt at putting everything together. Then, after that elation, I realized that this is not the curriculum that teachers would understand (and be able to teach properly) any more than they are able to understand and teach inquiry. In fact, it is a much more philosophically (epistemological) complex curriculum than anything that has been proposed to date. Even Rutherford (an author of Science for All Americans) would find the common core STEM curriculum difficult to work with in the classroom.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">Sorry my sickness has gotten the better of me.
 * my comment**

The how verse why is a great comparison. In my loosely comprehensive though process, I've been thinking how inquiry is how we as teacher are supposed to teach science which is to teach the why.

The outcomes, going back to standards, takes us back to content. Inquiry may be a desire, but knowing facts becomes the 'teaching to the test' moment.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">One thing I can see in all of this is that everyone sort has their own definition of "inquiry".
 * Bill's comment**

Now, if you consider that the first _serious_ writing about inquiry in teaching science occurred as the first article of volume 2 of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (1964) and that, if you review the literature since that time, there have been a multitude of attempts to clarify and reinforce the idea that inquiry should be an integral of k-12 science teacher, then why the uncertainty as to what "inquiry" really is?

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**Michele's comment** My feeling is that there are so many attempts to clarify inquiry and so much research on the subject, teachers get confused. If the science education community could agree on one definition, it would be a beginning. I'm not sure if that will ever happen. It is like a puzzle that never gets finished. Lots of researchers bring pieces to add, but the final product still has holes. And then, not everyone can agree if a piece should be there in the first place.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**Bill's comment** Hear! Hear! I agree...

"Lots of researchers bring pieces to add" but I would also add, lots of teachers bring pieces to add too (Their spin on things), which is why I am going to have to agree with Kyle on this matter. There is only one inquiry, everything else is learning.

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">**<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">sub-discussion 2 ** <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Michele's second topic: ** <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">William Kyle makes a distinction between inquiry in general and the learning process. He states “students should not be led to believe that they are performing scientific inquiry when in fact they are learning.” Are teachers truly asking students performing scientific inquiry in the classroom? **

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**Michele's comment** The November, 2009 edition of NSTA Reports had a very interesting article on the front page. It was called, “Rethinking Scientific Inquiry,” by Mark Windschitl. His article discusses the idea that classroom teachers should reconsider their practices. Many educators still think of inquiry as the “scientific method.” We ask students to make observations, define a problem, construct a hypothesis, etc. However, Windschitl states that this is not how science works in the real world. In the real world of scientific investigation, “questions emerge from tentative models of how some part of the natural world works.” We ask students to “think like a Scientist” and to conduct inquiry investigations that they have designed in order to gain deeper understanding of science concepts. He points out that many of the questions that students answer are based on interest. The data gathered shows the relationship between the outcomes and the conditions tested. The concern is that this narrow type of teaching will leave the student uninformed about the underlying explanations. Rutherford shares his concern in his article. He writes, “Science teachers must come to understand just how inquiry is in fact conducted in the sciences.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**Bill's comment** The Windschitl article is based on a research article he published in _Science Education_ a year earlier. His argument is basically the argument of Kyle, except he has some research data to back up his arguments (Note: this is small sample, case study data that NCLB would absolutely frown upon).

Windschiti, Kyle, and Rutherford would all agree that to get the type of scientific inquiry that they would like to see in the classroom, the amount of commitment to the understanding of science on the part of the teacher would have to increase significantly.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**my comment** Though my thoughts lack cohesiveness, I read Windschitl's 2008 article written in "What Is Inquiry? A Framework for Thinking About Authentic Scientific Practice in the Classroom" entitled "What Is Inquiry? A Framework for Thinking About Authentic Scientific Practice in the Classroom," 2008, NSTA Press (http://ed5740.wikispaces.com/file/view/NSTA_resource.pdf) where he proposes we organize our thoughts around four main discussions: "1. Organizing what we know and what we’d like to know, 2. Generating a model, 3. Seeking evidence, 4. Constructing an argument. "

"Mark Windschitl, a former secondary science teacher, is associate professor of science education at the University of Washington. He has done multiple studies on how early career science teachers develop and how inquiry is implemented in secondary classrooms." (http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=56675)

Windschitl is a researcher of science inquiry in the classroom. From his writings, science inquiry definitions and interpretations evolve around the same ideas of what science inquiry actually means, is.

It would seem we are running around the word inquiry and still promoting content. Teachers essentially need to be scientists prior to being educators in order to have a better grasp of what science is. Educators need to experience science first hand in order to project science properly.

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">**sub-discussion 3**

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Michele's third topic: ** <span style="color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Rutherford contends that the teaching of science as inquiry is used in two general ways: **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">a. Inquiry is a part of the science content ** <span style="color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">b. Inquiry is a strategy for bringing about the learning of science content **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 19px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Of the two, should teachers emphasize one more than the other or should they be given equal weight as they prepare their lessons? There is a commonality among the four articles and that is inquiry. It seems that educators have been working for quite some time to come up with a working definition of inquiry in the classroom. NSES has made the distinction between; inquiry-based teaching and learning, inquiry in a general sense and inquiry as practiced by scientists. **


 * Michele's comment**

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">Inquiry-based instruction should promote an understanding of scientific concepts and the nature of science. If we separate out content (what we know) from process (how we learn), we end up doing our students a disservice. If we only focus on content, our instruction does not align with state or national standards. If we only focus on process, our students have great skills, but little science knowledge. So, do we focus on content with process, or process with content? Eugene Chiappetta and April Adams wrote an article published in The Science Teacher (2004) that explains how content and process goes hand-in-hand. After reading the article, I feel I tend to lean toward the content with process approach. In my classes, I use a variety of approaches to teach. Lecture (not all the time) with discussion, role play, videos, and outside resources are all used to help deliver content. I also include opportunities for students to design their own investigations to answer their questions. The one part of this approach that may need work is the chance to seek out additional information by reading additional books, doing research on the internet, and discussing their ideas with adults or other students.

"Of the two, should teachers emphasize one more than the other or should they be given equal weight as they prepare their lessons?"
 * Bill's comment**

The distinction made by Rutherford is not really a distinction between content and inquiry, but more like content, inquiryA, and inquiryB. His article is mostly about the differences between inquiryA and inquiryB.

- InquiryA: teaching about inquiry - InquiryB: teaching with inquiry

Kyle and Schauble et al. only address inquiryB. The inquiryA option is definitely not a hands-on approach. But, it might be a viable alternative given the "mess" involved with understanding and using inquiryB in the classroom (and even in the curriculum standards, textbooks, etc.). InquiryA could be a place to start instruction, and might be the only scientific inquiry (in the Kyle sense) that _all_ students are exposed to. That does not mean an end of open-ended problem solving, investigations, experiments, and the like, as instruction techniques. It would mean that students (and teachers) have an opportunity to study compelling, real-world inquiries (as content) with the goal of understanding the nature of science (NOS), but would not be held to an unrealistic standard of performing at that level (Kyle style scientific inquiry).

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**my comment** Very Nice. We are whittling away the distractions. Inquiry appears to be the accepted means for teaching science, though without knowing what this entails, it makes reaching a goal chaotic.

As an educator, I've placed the highest value on outcomes. What would I like my student to know by the end of a term or a semester. I use this information to generate a final exam, and I write each question as an objective from the get go.

Teaching science is a difficult because we aren't simply teaching facts and words, we want to teach a process for learning. I mostly teach math and that goal is all about learning a process in logic. I appreciate the break down of InquiryA and InquiryB because it helps distinguish between how we teach, and in particular what we are teaching.

If we bring up standards and how students lack skills from previous grades, it is unreasonable for a science class to be only InquiryB. If we are discussing science for all, a middle ground needs to be determined from the assessment point of view. From the classroom, I believe we can be anything we want to be, but it is the want I try to get out of all my students. Students have to want to think like a scientist. Inquiry is meant to tap into a young mind's natural inquiry, yet their inquisitiveness is lost through their years of going to school.

We want students that are excited about learning and enjoy the learning experience, as well as encourage learning in their future endeavors. Focusing on content becomes dry and rote memorization. Inquiry brings the material to life, but we still need content. Students want to know why they need to learn certain material. I enjoy using engineering examples because there is a potential career. Scientists are researchers, but I don't know enough "scientists" that only answer the question why, it is usually why and how. In a capitalistic society, a why now wants to be a patent and name recognition. I am stuck at the difference between a scientist and an engineer, yet only in practicality of future careers for my students. I want them to love what they do when they grow up, and it is possible through knowing the content of science and about inquiry, along with writing, reading, and arithmetic.

The debate boils down to teaching about inquiry vs teaching with inquiry. In teaching with inquiry, students are given the chance to study real-world inquiries as content. I’m not quite sure how this would work for my middle school students. Would they be able to understand? I’m afraid I would lose half of them. I believe that we need to try for InquiryA, but include InquiryB as much as students can handle. <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">
 * Michele's comment** <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">Thank you for the clarification. I totally missed the mark on this one. I'm going to try it again to see if I can get it right.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">mycomment <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**Reviewing week 2**, the theme is defining inquiry that is appropriate for k-12 instruction. I came out swinging with my perception of inquiry which becomes the eye of the beholder. This is better stated by Michele, "It is the individual interpretation of the definition of inquiry that will determine how much or how little inquiry is used in the classroom." Bill trumps in with an article from Science Teacher that has plenty of adjectives for inquiry questioning scientific inquiry dichotomy. Our discussion diversifies inquiring engineering verse science which Bill clarified as a how verse why question. We concluded on Bill's agreement with Kyle where "there is only one inquiry, everything else is learning." <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">We next explored whether teachers are actually teaching inquiry in their classrooms. Michele notes Windshitl doesn't believe the scientific method is how to think like a scientist and further quotes Rutherford, "science teachers must come to understanding just how inquiry is in fact conducted in the sciences." Bill concurs that all three authors, Windschiti, Kyle, and Rutherford, believe this as well. I came in at the tail from reading up on Windschitl's bio and past works realizing we write about inquiry for different reasons. <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">Our last topic looked at Rutherfords science as inquiry, where he contends two general ways, inquiry as content or inquiry as a strategy. Michele wondered where we should place focus, the process or the content. She stated she'd like to "lean toward content with process approach." Bill then clarifies a distinction of three: content, inquiryA, and inquiryB. InquiryA is teaching about inquiry and inquiryB is teaching with inquiry. As much as I enjoyed the whittling away of distractions of inquiry, I diverted to outcomes and objectives, eventually leading back to appreciating inquiryA and inquiryB because they force us to reevaluate how we teach and what we teach. Michele concludes this discussion agreeing with inquiryA with a dap of inquiryB "as much as students can handle." <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">