The standards-based science education reform initiative is toppling many long-standing barriers to inquiry-based instruction. The National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), provides strong and authoritative endorsement for inquiry-based science instruction, and the response to the Standards in the educational literature is unambiguous--inquiry-based science instruction is widely recognized as not only valuable but essential (National Science Teachers Association, 1998a; National Science Teachers Association, 1998b, Annenberg CPB Math and Science Project, 1995; Lederman and Nies, 1998). The standards-based reform initiative has established inquiry-based instruction as the accepted and encouraged best-practice (Loucks-Horsley, 1998; Edwards, 1997; Chiappetta, 1997; Mergendoller, 1997; Collins, 1997; Bybee and Champagne, 1995; Bybee, 1995; Pratt, 1995). Additionally, inquiry-based science instruction need not be viewed as formidable, especially if teachers are supported in learning about inquiry-based instruction though professional development activities that are themselves inquiry-based, as called for in the Standards.

    Many current science teaching practices, which appear to be highly inconsistent with the goals of the Standards, actually almost support inquiry-based instruction and can be modified or enhanced to do so. Many traditional hands-on science activities are especially well suited to such enhancement. A key characteristic of these activities is that they are not inherently flawed, but merely fall short of supporting full inquiry because teachers terminate lessons prematurely. This paper explains and evaluates a general approach for modifying and extending these activities to be inquiry-based. We have applied the approach outlined in this paper at the elementary grade levels and in middle school science classes and consistently found it to be a very effective tool for implementing the type of powerful, effective, and manageable inquiry-based science instruction called for in the National Science Education Standards. We have also found the approach extremely useful in teaching inquiry-based instructional methods to pre-service and in-service science K-12 science teachers. (sentence on how Dancing Raisins has been consistently well-received in teacher workshops / conferences and how it has been used as a corner-stone in pre-service science methods courses for 25 years, resulting in hundred of thousands of K-12 science teachers have been trained in inquiry-based instruction using this model/strategy/approach)

    Facilitating teachers' efforts to extend traditional hands-on activities to be inquiry-based is also consistent with the Standards call for teachers to be supported in implementing inquiry-based science instruction through professional development opportunities that (1) are themselves inquiry-based; (2) whenever possible occur within the contexts where the teachers' understandings will be used; and (3) support teachers as intellectual reflective practitioners who are sources of change, rather than as technicians who are targets of change.

Purpose and Overview of Proposed Strategy

As discussed in the Standards, in the absence of effective teacher intervention, open exploration is not an effective means of teaching science. Teachers must constantly intervene in students’ exploration to direct student inquiry towards established goals and to challenge students to "grapple" with challenging but manageable problems. In the absence of such intervention, the exploration is not only ineffective, but is likely to result in student frustration. However, intervention that is overly restrictive or premature deprives students of learning opportunities. As the Standards stress, effective science teachers "constantly struggle" to strike a balance among these conflicting goals upon what they have learned.

    Discrepant events are widely recognized as an effective means of drawing students into inquiry-based science lessons. Discrepant events confront students with counter-intuitive findings, which demonstrate a scientific principle and challenge their existing misconceptions about the workings of the world and universe around them. Consequently, their use creates the dissequlibrium Piaget recognizes as conducive to deep learning.

    Unfortunately, as traditionally implemented, hands-on lessons involving discrepant events make only the most minimal use of their rich starting points. Typically the lessons use the event to (1) briefly illustrate a single example of a scientific principle; (2) engage students in a short hands-on activity, and (3) provide fodder for a relatively trivial lesson in data analysis. Two examples are provided here to illustrate the nature of such lessons. As these examples illustrate, the hands-on lessons tend to be teacher-centered and either textbook- or worksheet-driven.

    In the first example, a discrepant event is introduced through a teacher-centered demonstration of the counter-intuitive event that occurs when a raisin is dropped into a glass of carbonated beverage such as Sprite® or Club Soda® . The raisin, being slightly denser than the liquid, initially sinks to the bottom of the glass. Surprisingly, however, the raisin does not stay on the bottom of the glass. Carbon dioxide bubbles in the beverage will attach themselves to the submerged raisin, creating buoyancy that causes the raisin to bob up to the surface. When a raisin reaches the surface, the bubbles on the top of the raisin break, the raisin roles over, the remaining bubbles break, and the raisin sinks. As traditionally implemented, the demonstration is lesson followed by the teacher walking the students through a short worksheet driven step-by-step hands-on activity.

    It is possible for students to learn from the activities, as outlined above, and the lessons provide at least limited opportunity for students to explore the concepts of buoyancy and density. Unfortunately it is not only possible, but also likely, that students will learn erroneous and impoverished concepts regarding the nature of science from this type of hands-on science instruction. Like many traditional hands-on activities, the lesson is teacher-centered, worksheet-driven and emphasizes mechanical and routine tasks characteristic of the work of laboratory technicians. Furthermore, students have little ownership of the investigation. Rather than designing and carrying out an investigation to answer their own question, they are following instructions to find out if they guessed the right answer to the teacher's question.

    Yet, with a bit of expansion, Dancing Raisins and similar hands-on activities can be transformed into experiences that are more educational and scientifically valid. In the expanded form, the lessons allow students to experience and enjoy science as a creative process for exploring, testing, and explaining their own ideas. In other words, the activities can be extended into inquiry-based science instruction, as envisioned in the Standards.

    The transformation from merely hands-on to inquiry-based hands-on requires that teachers use effective questioning techniques that both stimulate and purposefully direct student inquiry (National Research Council, 1996). Teachers also ask questions to challenge students. For example, as shown below, the question, "Can you find a way to make the raisins dance faster?" can be used to challenge students to design an experiment. As Elstgeest (1985) explains, the "can you find a way to" question is a particularly effective vehicle for initiating hands-on inquiry:

Step 1: Select an appropriate hands-on activity and set the stage for inquiry

    Whenever possible, the students should be allowed to discover the discrepant event through their own hands-on exploration of the materials rather than through teacher-centered demonstrations. Why should teachers have all the fun? Dancing Raisins is ideally suited towards such an introduction. For example, to introduce Dancing Raisins, the teacher can organize the class into cooperative groups and give each group a small box of raisins, a cup of Sprite® , and the following instructions: "As a group, pick out the five raisins in your box you think will be the best dancers. Figure out some way to get rid of the rest of the raisins." Note that the point of this exercise is simply to direct the students to have fun working together on an interesting-sounding question--the activity has nothing to do with directing students towards analysis of characteristics of raisins that effect buoyancy. As soon as a group has successfully completed those tasks, the teacher might ask those students questions about what they expect the raisins that they selected would do if placed in the cup of Sprite® , and then invite them to find out what happens.

    Some activities may require more direct teacher intervention at this stage, and teachers will need to reflect upon the nature of the activity and their goals when deciding how to best introduce the activity. For example, as compared to dancing raisins, the celery transpiration activity noted above is somewhat more cumbersome to set up and, the discrepant event is less provocative--some hours after setting up the demonstration the leaves slowly begin changing colors. Thus, in this lesson the teacher may which to set up the activity as a demonstration and only engage the students in hands-on activities after the results start becoming manifest. In this case, the hands-on activities may begin with the students examining the stalks and making entries in their science journals documenting how their observations. Again the students should be working in cooperative groups and forced to solve social problems and rewarded for doing so successfully--perhaps the students who first figure out how to share the limited supply of colored pencils at their station can be the first group to use the microscope to view cross-sections of the celery stalks.

Step 2: Pose a question and facilitate a brainstorming session to extend inquiry about the discrepant event.
    The extension of the traditional hands-on activity takes a decided turn towards full inquiry when the teacher (or a student) poses a "can you think of a way to" question as a precursor to a "can you find a way to" question. In the case of Dancing Raisins, the question takes the form of "can you think of a way to make the raisins dance faster?" The question is used as a springboard for a brainstorming session, which the teacher facilitates. The objective is to illicit the student's ideas and write down every idea the students come up with on the board, a flip chart, or the like. For example, students may predict that squished raisins dance faster than normal raisins that raisins dance faster in colder or warmer beverages, etc. The rules of brainstorming apply--document all ideas and avoid critiquing ideas at this point; the goal is to get the ideas down, not evaluate them.

    The brainstorming and listing of ideas is essential for three reasons. First, the aspects of brainstorming that can make it such a useful tool when working with adults are even more critical when working with children. Elementary and middle school science students often don't know how to get started when tasked with framing a scientific question or investigating an idea scientifically. Inquiry begins to die when they are told to write down a hypothesis--you might as well demand that they begin with the null hypothesis or by determining if a one-tailed or two-tailed test should be used. The brainstorming activity capitalizes on their natural enthusiasm and creativity, validates the worth of their ideas, and moves them into designing an experiment before they realize what is happening. Second, students can benefit from structure that constrains and channels inquiry towards manageable tasks. The brainstorming allows students to "choose" what will be investigated from a finite number of options. Finally, as explained below, the information gathered in this step provides part of the structure essential later in the strategy. Thus, students retain ownership while being provided structure, in part, because they (perhaps unwittingly at first) are major contributors in the strategy of building the structural framework itself.

Step 3 Begin designing and planning scientific investigations.
    The brainstorming activity naturally stimulates inquiry, and often generates controversy, about which methods would be most effective in achieving the goal (in this case, making raisins dance faster). The major goals of this step involve (1) facilitating the students in each cooperative group in deciding upon the particular item they will investigate (from the list generated in the brainstorming activity), (2) facilitating students in planning an investigation, and (3) providing the whole- group instruction needed to prepare students for the hands-on activity and oral presentation of their research.

    The teacher directs each cooperative group to select, from the list generated in the brainstorming session, the one item (variable) that they want to test. Although the listing activity has limited the options to a finite set, students are still likely to have difficulty in achieving group consensus. Teachers can facilitate students in this struggle in several ways. For example, requiring students to obtain the special materials needed to test their ideas can narrow the range of options. Also, teachers can (and usually should) help the students identify the items that are particularly impractical or problematic. However, sometimes ideas that are impractical are also very interesting. For example, the idea of injecting a raisin with helium is both problematic and interesting. Testing this idea will require some direct involvement on the teachers' part. However, the results are dynamic. Time constraints can also be used to provide structure. The brainstorming should never be allowed to drag on much beyond the point of diminishing returns, and groups must be given time limits on forming a decision about what they want to study.

    Teachers begin facilitating students' efforts to plan an investigation as they change the focus of inquiry from theory (can you think of a way) to application (can you find a way). Even though different groups are testing different ideas, everyone is interested in the same question--how can we make the raisins dance faster?" The question, "faster than what?" naturally leads students to articulate their ideas in the form of hypotheses. It is not important that the term "hypothesis" be used. Regardless of the terminology used, the teacher can focus inquiry on these issues and guide it towards discussion of experimental design involving test conditions, controlled conditions, dependent variables (how "faster" is measured), independent variables (items selected from the list), and control variables (everything else in the list).

    Once the decision is made to try answering the question with a direct test (experiment), it is essential to establish the reporting and product requirements of the assignment. Students should be required to record what question(s) they are trying to answer, and what they will need to do find an answer, what results will be recorded. Students should also be required to present and defend the results of their investigations to their classmates. As discussed in the Standards, these requirements are an important tool for helping students understand the nature of scientific inquiry--for example "the greater value of evidence and argument over personality and style" (National Research Council, 1996, p. 36).

    These requirements play a significant role in this strategy for extending traditional hands-on activities. Although each group will be experimenting with different variables, they are trying to answer closely related questions. Consequently students tend to have more than a casual interest in the findings (and methods) of other groups, and they are usually keenly aware that their peers' are interested in their work. Within this context, the "class presentation" requirement takes on new meaning.

    The teacher can, and should, ensure that this condition promotes student learning rather than student anxiety. For example, the teacher can assist the students in developing the most effective ways of presenting their ideas. This instruction should certainly include and emphasize broadly applicable communications skills (e.g., speaking clearly, avoiding distracting movements, etc.). However, the instruction should also support other learning objectives more specific to inquiry-based science. For example, rather than dictating that a bar graph be used, a teacher might ask, "Now, remember that you only have two minutes to present your findings. How are you going to make sure everyone can really understand what all those numbers mean?" A combination of supported problem solving, trial and error, and direct instruction is then used to determine that the best choice is a bar graph. The students "own" that decision and they own what they learned about specific graphic formats, because they figured it out (with some help from the teacher).

    Students should not be expected to understand, let alone figure out, that a bar graph is warranted (rather than a line graph) because discrete data is being displayed. Additionally, direct instruction and guidance will probably be necessary to ensure that the students adhere to the convention of plotting the dependent variable on the Y axis (number of dances, in this case) and the independent variable on the X axis (See Figure Two). Nonetheless, there are smaller problems that can be solved in route to these conclusions.

    The teacher continues working with the class in this manner to provide the instruction necessary to prepare the students for conducting the investigations. This instruction includes establishing the protocols for working in cooperative groups, and ensuring that the product and reporting requirements are fully and clearly understood.

Step 4: Pilot Experiment

    This step begins with students working in cooperative groups, attempt to find the answers to their questions through hands-on investigations. The Standards and other resources provide an excellent resource base for information on facilitating students engaged in this type of process. Consequently, this discussion is limited to few specific nuances relevant to this particular strategy for extending student inquiry of a discrepant event.

    It is likely that students will still need and benefit from considerable support at this point in the process. Although it is imperative that the activity be inquiry- rather than worksheet-based, it is usually necessary to meet some of students' needs for structure and support with a written job performance aid. We have found a form modeled after materials developed within the SSCS approach (Pizzini, 1991) very effective in meeting this need (see Figure Three). When provided at this point in the process, this type of form is no longer perceived as another dreaded worksheet to be completed. Rather, the form is likely to be perceived as a job performance aid designed to help students manage details as they design and carry out their own experiments to test their own ideas.

    We recommend that students conduct either a control-condition experiment at this stage of the process before conducting the modified experiment that tests their ideas. For example, students would repeat the Dancing Raisins activity at this point and carefully measure the rate at which the raisins bob up and down under the original conditions. Unlike the initial activity, students will need to control variables (e.g., measure the volume and temperature of the beverage in the container), measure the rate of dances (count the number of bobs during a given time interval) and document their findings. Additionally, teachers can provide specific direction and instruction to enhance learning, (e.g., direct students to observe how the raisins role over before sinking). This hands-on activity can be followed by activities that help students reflect upon how the increased scientific examination of the event effected their understandings and learning (e.g., reflective writing and class discussions).

    Finally, the students work through the activity a final time testing their own ideas, gather and analyze class presentation requirement is an important part of this strategy and should not be neglected. Teachers should continue to use the requirement as a tool for focusing and directing students' attention. For example, questions such as, "How will you explain that in your class presentation?" can be very effective in facilitating students' critical thinking and attention to detail during the hands-on work. It is also generally appropriate to provide additional whole-group instruction (or review) on the oral presentation component of the lesson after the hands-on portion of the work has been completed

Additional Applications

The example above illustrates a number of broadly applicable techniques for conducting hands-on inquiry integrated into a strategy for extending students observations of discrepant events. Discrepant events are frequently used as attention grabbing devices in traditional hands-on activities, and in many cases the strategy illustrated above can be applied to extend those activities into full inquiry science lessons. "SympatheticPendulums," (Author, 1995), provides another example of an excellent hands-on activity ideally suited to this type of extension. In SympatheticPendulums, two Pendulums are suspended from a string, as shown in Figure Four, and one of them is set in motion. Students will be amazed at the behavior of the pendulums as the energy is transferred from one to the other. The pendulums will begin to move together and, as the transfer of energy continues, the first pendulum will slow to a stop and the other will swing independently. The kinetic energy will continue to transfer back and forth until it finally dissipates as heat. In this case, the challenge question is, "Can you make the observed transfer of energy/motion happen more quickly?"

    The strategy can also be modified to effectively extend other traditional hands-on activities that do not perfectly lend themselves to every detail of the Dancing Raisins model. Consider, for example, how this strategy could be applied to the popular transpiration activity conducted with a stalk of celery that is placed in a jar of water containing a few drops of food coloring (red works well). Over time, some of the leaves take on a red tinge and the veins that carry the water up the stalk become visibly dyed when a cross section of the stalk is cut. Natural extensions of this activity can be initiated with questions such as, "Can you think of a way to make the red color brighter/ cover more of the leaves/ occur more quickly?" In this example, the student investigations may not lend themselves to objective measurements, indicating that it would be inappropriate to direct students to graph their findings. Nonetheless, the extended activity provides an excellent means of teaching students how to conduct full-inquiry investigations and focusing students' hands-on investigations on what they are learning about plants and water cycles. Students may reasonably predict, for example, that a wilted celery stalk will yield the most striking results.

    The approach can be used to create a lesson directly from any number of discrepant events. A number of resources, in addition to old lesson plans, provide a rich resource base to stimulate ideas. For example, in Invitations to Science Inquiry, Liem (1987) provides examples of over 400 discrepant events that can be used to initiate an inquiry in virtually any topic of science at upper elementary or intermediate level.

Conclusion

Hands-on does not guarantee inquiry. However, many seemingly limited hands-on activities can be extended into the realm of inquiry using a strategy that involves (1) student-discovered discrepant events to engage students and direct inquiry; (2) teacher-supported brainstorming activities to facilitate students in planning investigations; (3) suitable written job performance aids, such as those used within the SSCS approach, to provide structure and support, and (4) requirements that students' provide a product of their research, which includes a class presentation and a graph.

    The strategy addresses several pronounced needs at this stage in the standards-based reform initiative. First, the need for inquiry-based instruction is too pressing for teachers to wait for new curriculum materials to be developed and promulgated. Teachers need strategies, such as described in this paper, that allow them to move forward from where they are towards the realization of the Standards vision. The existing corpus of non-inquiry lesson plans may prove a significant resource in implementing the Standards. Second, for many traditionally oriented teachers, the first steps towards inquiry-based instruction may be the most difficult. As noted by one convert, the initial uncertainty associated with stepping into inquiry-based instruction can make veteran teachers feel like they are first year teachers all over again (Annenberg CPB Math and Science Project, 1995). There may be substantial benefit to allowing these teachers to step into that new world using extended, but nonetheless familiar, activities and lesson plans. Furthermore, such lesson plans may well be an ideal resource for helping these teachers understand the differences between what they where doing and what they can do through inquiry-based instruction. These benefits are all consistent with the National Science Education Standards strategy and goal of using inquiry-based approaches to support teachers as agents of educational reform.

Annenberg / CPB Math and Science Project. (1995). Minds Of Our Own. Public Broadcasting System Video production of Science Media Group. M. H. Schneps, Director. South Burlington, VT.

Author. (1995). Hands On Science.

Bybee, R. W. (1995). Achieving scientific literacy. The Science Teacher, 62(7),
28-33.

Bybee, R. W. & Champagne, A. B. (1995). An introduction to the national science
education standards. The Science Teacher, 62(1), 40-45.

Chiappetta, E. L. (1997) Inquiry-Based Science. Science Teacher, 64(7). 22-26.

Collins, A. (1997). National science education standards: Looking backward and
forward. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 299-314.

Edwards, C. H. (1997) Promoting Student Inquiry. Science Teacher, 64(7). 18-21.

Elstgeest, J. (1985). The right question at the right time. Primary Science, Taking the Plunge, W. Harlen, ed. Oxford: Heinemann Educational.

Lederman, N. G. and Nies, M. L. (1998). Survival of the fittest. School Science and Mathematics. 98(4). 169-172.

Liem, T. L. (1987). Invitation to Science Inquiry, Second Edition. Chino Hills: Science Inquiry Enterprises.

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). The role of teaching and learning in systemic reform: A focus on professional development. Science Educator, 7(1), 1-6.

Mergendoller, J. R. (1997). From hands-on through minds-on to systemic reform in science education. The Elementary School Journal 97(4). 295-298.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. (1 st ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

National Science Teachers' Association (1998a). The National Science Education Standards: A vision for the Improvement of Science Teaching And Learning. Science and Children, 35(8). 32-34.

National Science Teachers' Association (1998b). The National Science Education Standards: A vision for the Improvement of Science Teaching And Learning. Science Scope, 21(8). 32-34.

Pizzini, E. L. (1991). SSCS Implementation Handbook, University of Iowa Printing, Iowa City, Iowa.

Pratt, H. (1995). A Look at the program standards. The Science Teacher, 62(7),

22-27.
 
 

Number 9

7

of 5

3

Dances 2

1

Figure 1. Traditional worksheet for
"Dancing Raisins" activity.

Comparison of Raisins Dancing in Sprite
and in Sprite after adding baking soda

Number of

dances in

10 minutes 14 13 times

12

10 10 times

8

6

4

2

Sprite Only Sprite with

baking Soda

Figure 2. Sample of student-generated graph.

Figure 3. Set-up for "Sympathetic Pendulums"
investigation based on Author (1995).

Group Members

1. We are going to investigate this question:
 

2. We predict these findings:
 

3. To answer this question, we will do these things:
 

4. During our investigation, we will record the following:
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 4. Job Performance Aid for Dancing Raisins modeled after SSCS Worksheet (Pizzini, 1991).