scientific inquiry in education is based on rigid thinking

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.13(1); Spring 2014

Guiding Students to Develop an Understanding of Scientific Inquiry: A Science Skills Approach to Instruction and Assessment

Associated data.

Teacher-driven action research in the high school biology classroom reveals effective instructional and assessment strategies for guiding students to integrate their ideas about the skills and practices necessary for scientific inquiry. Implications for inquiry-based teaching and research in undergraduate life sciences courses are discussed.

New approaches for teaching and assessing scientific inquiry and practices are essential for guiding students to make the informed decisions required of an increasingly complex and global society. The Science Skills approach described here guides students to develop an understanding of the experimental skills required to perform a scientific investigation. An individual teacher's investigation of the strategies and tools she designed to promote scientific inquiry in her classroom is outlined. This teacher-driven action research in the high school biology classroom presents a simple study design that allowed for reciprocal testing of two simultaneous treatments, one that aimed to guide students to use vocabulary to identify and describe different scientific practices they were using in their investigations—for example, hypothesizing, data analysis, or use of controls—and another that focused on scientific collaboration. A knowledge integration (KI) rubric was designed to measure how students integrated their ideas about the skills and practices necessary for scientific inquiry. KI scores revealed that student understanding of scientific inquiry increased significantly after receiving instruction and using assessment tools aimed at promoting development of specific inquiry skills. General strategies for doing classroom-based action research in a straightforward and practical way are discussed, as are implications for teaching and evaluating introductory life sciences courses at the undergraduate level.

INTRODUCTION

Instruction and assessment are often designed to teach and measure the science concepts students learn but are less likely to address the skills students must develop in order to answer meaningful scientific questions. To make informed decisions in modern society, students must routinely formulate questions, test ideas, collect and analyze data, support arguments with evidence, and collaborate with peers. To promote such skills, science educators have long recommended frequent experimental work and hands-on activities ( Dewey, 1916 ) and effective assessment methods for measuring critical scientific-thinking skills and evaluating performance in laboratory exercises ( National Research Council [NRC], 2000 ). It is crucial that we strive to meet the call to improve K–12 and undergraduate inquiry instruction and assessment set out by a number of national science education organizations ( NRC, 1996 , 2003 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1998 , 2009 ). Most recently, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) provided guidelines for encouraging the practices that scientists and engineers engage in as they investigate and build models across the K–12 science curriculum and beyond ( NGSS, 2013 ).

Many educators have claimed that inquiry is especially important in urban environments and for engaging minority students in making math and science relevant for them ( Barnes et al. , 1989 ; Stigler and Heibert, 1999 ; Moses, 2001 ; Haberman, 2003 ; Tate et al. , 2008 ; Siritunga et al. , 2011 ). Inquiry-based instruction includes a variety of teaching strategies, such as questioning; focusing on language; and guiding students to make comparisons, analyze, synthesize, and model. Skills important for scientific thinking are often taught implicitly; that is, the instructor assumes students learn how to think like a scientist by simply engaging in frequent experimental work in the classroom. However, explicit approaches have been shown to be more effective, for example, in teaching nature of science concepts to both students and science teachers ( Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman, 2000 ; Lederman et al ., 2001 ). The classroom described in this action research study aims to create a learning environment that is explicit about these essential features of classroom inquiry.

An accumulation of evidence exists for how inquiry in the science classroom at both the undergraduate and K–12 levels is effective in promoting student understanding of various content areas in life sciences education. Examples include an increased understanding of a variety of key concepts in the life sciences ( Aronson and Silviera, 2009 ; Lau and Robinson, 2009 ; Rissing and Cogan, 2009 ; Ribarič and Kordaš, 2011 ; Siritunga et al. , 2011 ; Treacy et al. , 2011 ; Zion et al. , 2011 ; Ryoo and Linn, 2012 ). Moreover, Derting and Ebert-May (2010) have shown long-term improvements in learning for students who experience learning-centered inquiry in introductory biology classes. While several studies have correlated such inquiry-based curricula on specific science topics with improvements in general academic skills ( Lord and Orkwiszewski, 2006 ; Treacy et al. , 2011 ), more research is needed on how students develop and integrate their understanding of specific experimental and scientific inquiry skills, as well as what general strategies are effective for promoting and measuring this understanding.

The theoretical framework that lies at the foundation of this study is knowledge integration (KI). “The knowledge integration perspective … characterizes learners as developing a repertoire of ideas, adding new ideas from instruction, experience, or social interactions, sorting out these ideas in varied contexts, making connections among ideas at multiple levels of analysis, developing more and more nuanced criteria for evaluating ideas, and formulating an increasingly linked set of views about any phenomenon” ( Linn, 2006 , p. 243). KI lies at the heart of the curricular design for both concepts and skills taught in the classroom in this study, as well as the design of the research tools for the study itself.

A number of KI rubrics and scoring guides have been developed to measure the extent to which students connect ideas important for understanding key concepts in different content areas ( Linn et al. , 2006 ; Liu et al. , 2008 ). For example, Ryoo and Linn (2012) designed a rubric that captures how middle school students integrate their ideas about how light energy is transformed into chemical energy during photosynthesis. In this study, the KI framework is applied to issues of how students integrate their ideas about skills important for scientific inquiry. In particular, this framework goes beyond considering inquiry as an accumulation of compartmentalized ideas. Rather than examining discrete steps in the process of experimentation, such as analyzing data or reaching conclusions ( Casotti et al. , 2008 ), the KI construct described below allows for the integration of student ideas about different aspects of experimental work, such as how experimental design is connected to interpretation of data, accounting for the complex ways in which separate skills important for experimentation are interconnected.

The research question for this study was: How does the use of Science Skills instructional and assessment tools that encourage students to identify and explain the skills they are using in laboratory activities improve KI of student ideas about scientific inquiry and experimentation? A successful model for combining inquiry-based instruction with assessment tools for measuring student understanding of concepts related to scientific experimentation in a high school biology class is presented. While this study is set in a high school context, an argument is provided for how it could translate into introductory life sciences courses at the undergraduate level.

School Site and Participants

There has been an emphasis in recent years on creating “small schools” within large comprehensive schools that provide a more personalized education for students; build relationships among students, teachers, and parents; give teachers additional opportunities to collaborate; and focus on specific themes, such as health or the arts ( Feldman, 2010 ). Student participants were enrolled in a small school for visual and performing arts students within a large urban high school of more than 3000 students. The total enrollment for this small school was approximately 200 students distributed throughout grades 9 through 12. Arts, humanities, and science teachers collaborated to design an integrated science curriculum in which students learned cell biology, genetics, evolution, and ecology in a ninth-grade biology course, and applied this learning to an in-depth study of human anatomy and physiology, particularly those topics most relevant for visual and performing artists, in a 10th-grade human anatomy and physiology course. Participants in this study included all 10th-grade students for one academic year in two class periods, referred to here as groups 1 and 2.

Students in each of the two class periods for this research study represent a typical group of performing and visual arts high school students. As with any two class periods at most high schools, the two classes for this study differed from one another in some ways. De facto tracking existed in terms of students’ interests in specific performing arts, as performing and visual arts classes were scheduled to alternate with the science classes. Students were given a choice about which arts classes they could take; students who preferred drama ended up in group 1, and those who preferred dance ended up in group 2. Additionally, because there were fewer male dancers than female dancers, group 2 was predominantly female (89% compared with 53% for group 1). Students who identified as visual artists were in both groups 1 and 2. It is not clear whether the differences between the two groups may have had any effect on academic performance in a life sciences class, as the overall academic performance as reflected in the grades awarded to assignments in this class was roughly similar between the two groups, falling between 75% and 82% each semester. Student demographic data for this small school were roughly similar to those of the total student body at the high school for the academic year studied (see Supplemental Table S1; Education Data Partnership, 2010 ).

Permission to do this research was sought and obtained through the local school district; parents received a letter describing the teacher's plans for the research and had the option to give consent for their student's work to be published.

Course Curricula

The students who participated in this research were in two class periods of 10th-grade human anatomy and physiology. The yearlong curriculum was organized by body system, as are many courses in human anatomy and physiology, with the systems brought together under different “big ideas,” such as “The brain serves to control and organize all body functions” and “Structure determines function.” While there was a strong emphasis on hands-on experience in the course, a variety of instructional approaches were used in these classrooms; these included lecture, group discussions, collaborative research projects, laboratory experiments, and inquiry-driven computer-based curricula. Throughout the course, the instructor made it clear to students that she particularly valued student-driven questions, experimentation, and the excitement of discovery. Key teaching strategies included: guiding students to provide a rationale for their predictions and hypotheses for experiments; leaving data organization and analysis open-ended; discussing as a class the pros and cons of experimental choices made by different student groups; combining class data to expand sample size; grading lab reports on the quality of evidence-based arguments rather than experimental outcomes; highlighting modeling whenever there was an opportunity; having students present findings directly to other classmates, including in scientific conference-style poster sessions; and providing structure for frequent class discussions and scientific discourse between peers in which there was an expectation of challenging and defending ideas. The textbook ( Marieb, 2006 ) was supplemented with curricula designed, collected, and/or modified by the author (e.g., from Kalamuck et al. , 2000 ; National Institutes of Health [NIH], 2000 ; WISE, 2012 ; Tate et al. , 2008 ). Students in the course typically engaged in experimental work for approximately 40% of the instructional time each week, with a specific focus on different aspects of the scientific research process and introduction to associated specialized vocabulary on an ongoing basis. A key learning objective for this curriculum is for students to increase awareness of who they are as scientists and develop a more specific vocabulary for discussing experimentation and their strengths in science.

Science Skills Instruments

With the intent of making a number of scientific-thinking and problem-solving skills explicit for students, a list of “A to Z Science Skills” was developed (such as A nalyzing, B uilding in controls, G raphing, H ypothesizing; Figure 1 ). Not only was this list posted on bulletin boards throughout the classroom, but every student also had quick access to a copy in his or her class binder. The instructor referred to the list whenever a term or method was introduced or required special emphasis in a class activity. It was made clear that this list was not all-inclusive; indeed, the class would often focus on a skill not on the list. Thus, this tool can be used to focus on different terms or parts of the scientific process, depending on the lab or activity for the day.

A to Z Science Skills. Note that this list is, of course, not all-inclusive and can be modified to fit instruction for other disciplines and at other levels from elementary through graduate education. A to Z Science Skills was adapted from Math Alphabilities (P. Tucher, personal communication).

Students’ experimental work was formatively assessed with a postlab reflection, which asked students to use the A to Z Science Skills list to “Pick 3 skills that you think you did well during lab, and describe how you demonstrated this skill.” This simple assignment was given approximately one to two times per month to assess 1) how students understood the importance of these terms and methods in relation to their own work doing science investigations, and 2) how they viewed their own development in using such skills. Generally, students completed this self-assessment at the end of a lab exercise as they wrote up their conclusions or after a series of experiments to reflect on their work during the previous week or two, which had the added benefit of promoting metacognition for their science learning. Conclusions for lab work were structured and always followed a similar pattern; students were asked to report their findings, use their data as evidence to support their claims, discuss sources of error, and identify a next experiment that would extend their work. As students completed their conclusions and the postlab reflection, they were encouraged to talk to one another about skills they had used that week (which were frequently different from those employed by their peers), giving the instructor the opportunity to wander around the classroom, checking to make sure their self-assessment matched her own understanding of what they had accomplished.

Group Collaboration Instruments

One skill that is key to successful scientific research is collaboration, which is specifically named in the A to Z Science Skills list. Scientific collaboration was promoted in the classroom on a regular basis with the use of a Group Collaboration rubric (Supplemental Figure S1) and the corresponding reflection, designed to measure successful collaboration skills, such as sharing ideas, distributing work, using time efficiently, and decision making. The goal for using the Group Collaboration tools was to improve awareness of what it takes to collaborate successfully and to help students learn to value group work more as an effective way to accomplish a major project. The Group Collaboration rubric outlined expectations for student group work and was introduced to students with the first major group project. Specifically, it measured collaboration skills in five categories described in a way that is accessible to high school students: Contributing & Listening to Ideas, Sharing in Work Equally, Using Time Efficiently, Making Decisions, and Discussing Science (Supplemental Figure S1). Over the course of the academic year, there were four times that groups worked together on an extensive project that served to review, connect, and apply concepts from a particular unit. These projects generally corresponded with the end of each quarter and lasted 1–2 wk each. After the projects were complete, each student was instructed “Use the rubric to pick the level that you feel your group reached in its collaboration for each category, and list one or more specific examples in the evidence column for how you reached that level” on an individual Group Collaboration reflection, which was a self-assessment of his or her group's performance. The Group Collaboration tools were also used intermittently for smaller group projects. It was made clear to the students that they would not be evaluated negatively if they identified areas needing improvement, but instead would be evaluated on their ability to provide evidence for their choices and to explain how they would improve on these areas in the future. As with the Science Skills tools, outlining different categories important for collaboration in the Group Collaboration rubric allowed an explicit focus on a specific aspect of good group work depending on the day or project.

Science Skills Assessment and KI Rubric

The extent to which student understanding of science skills and scientific collaboration changed over the course of the year was measured with a simple assessment, the Science Skills assessment (Supplemental Figure S2). Students were told that the assessment was for the instructor's own use to improve the course and would solicit their feedback in different ways about what helped them learn in the class. The assessment was given to students as a pre-, mid- and postassessment during approximately the first few weeks of the first semester, the first week of the second semester, and the last week of the academic year, respectively, and took less than 15 min to administer and complete each time.

A KI framework was used to develop a rubric for scoring open-ended responses to question 2 (“Name three skills that you think are important for doing science well, and explain why you picked them”) and question 5 (“What are your strengths in doing science?”). The Science Skills Knowledge Integration (SSKI) rubric was developed for this study to measure the extent to which students made links between specific skills and their importance for science ( Figure 2 includes examples of student responses). The SSKI rubric, a five-level latent construct aligned with other KI rubrics ( Linn et al. , 2006 ; Liu et al ., 2008 ), maps onto students’ increasingly sophisticated understanding of the research process. All scoring levels were represented in student responses. Interrater reliability for the SSKI rubric was greater than 95% for both questions 2 and 5, with two raters, with a high agreement indicated by a Cohen's kappa of 0.976.

SSKI rubric, with student examples. Examples are responses to the question “Name three skills that you think are important for doing science well, and explain why you picked them.”

For assessing whether students had more awareness of what it takes to collaborate successfully, at midsemester and at the end of the year, an attempt was made to create a KI rubric for collaboration to analyze responses to question 4 on the Science Skills assessment. Unfortunately, the open-ended responses proved difficult to code and categorize, limiting further information about student understanding of scientific collaboration from this study.

While some of the items on the Science Skills assessment are self-assessments, the SSKI rubric does not measure how much the students perceive they learned about science skills nor their skill level, but instead measures the ability of the student to identify specific skills important for scientific experimentation and the extent to which they are able to connect different ideas about the scientific research process. See Table 1   for a complete list of the different instruments used and the purpose intended for each.

Goals of Science Skills instruments

a Science Skills tools.

b Group Collaboration tools.

Study Design

The study was designed to simultaneously test two treatments, Science Skills or Group Collaboration, with two different groups of students and each group serving as a “no-treatment” comparison for other ( Figure 3 ). This experimental design can be applied to any classroom situation in which the student population can be divided into two groups for two independent interventions. In this case, the groups represented two different periods of students taking the same course, a typical teaching assignment for high school science teachers. During the first half of the year, group 2 was instructed to use the Science Skills assessment tools (A to Z Science Skills and postlab reflection, Table 1 ); at the same time, group 1 was instructed to use the Group Collaboration assessment tools (Group Collaboration rubric and reflection, Table 1 ). Thus, group 1 served as a no-treatment comparison for the group 2 Science Skills treatment, and group 2 served as a no-treatment comparison for the group 1 scientific collaboration treatment. Throughout the second half of the year, both groups were encouraged to develop scientific thinking and collaboration by using both types of assessment tools and therefore received instruction in both areas by the end of the course. KI gains were measured by scoring the Science Skills assessment responses to question 2 using the SSKI rubric (see above and Figure 2 ).

The study design allows for reciprocal testing of two simultaneous treatments.

The work presented here began when the author participated in Project IMPACT, a university program that provides a professional learning community structure to take on action research with regular feedback from teacher colleagues ( Curry, 2008 ). Teachers involved in this professional learning community worked on individual research projects connected by the general theme of how to promote social justice in a science or mathematics classroom. Teachers worked in groups of five to six with guidance from one another and a trained facilitator, posing a research question, designing a study, and testing changes they implemented in their classrooms. The Science Skills and Group Collaboration tools were piloted by the author with 120–140 high school life sciences students over the 2-yr period prior to the academic year in which this study took place.

Statistical Methods

Statistical analysis was done using Stata Data Analysis and Statistical Software (2012) and the R Software Environment (2013) , as indicated in relevant figure legends and associated text (see Results ).

Snapshots of Inquiry in the Classroom Using the Science Skills Approach

Many science teachers in K–12 urban schools struggle to create a learning environment that contains the essential features of classroom inquiry. This includes a learning environment in which students engage in scientifically oriented questions, formulate explanations from evidence, and communicate and justify their proposed explanations ( NRC, 2000 ; NGSS, 2013 ). Secondary life sciences teachers also struggle to unify inquiry-based lessons that span the entire curriculum in a cohesive manner. To meet the goal of promoting student inquiry, a new approach was designed and tested in the author's classroom, called “Science Skills,” a term that was accessible for high school students.

To illustrate how student inquiry was built into the curriculum in this classroom, a snapshot for one particular inquiry lesson is described. This lesson, which was taught within a unit on the senses and the nervous system, was modified from The Brain: Understanding Neurobiology through the Study of Addiction , a unit within a published curricular series ( NIH, 2000 ). For this lesson, all students in this study observed the effect of caffeine on the human body, generating their own hypotheses about the influence caffeinated soda drinks might have on their heart rates. They were instructed to choose controls to address different variables they expected to be important, record data in tables, and make graphs to analyze their data. As students worked together to make conclusions and compare findings with those of other student teams, students in one of the groups in this study were also asked to complete a postlab reflection (group 2; see the following section and Methods for details). One student focused on “observing” as a skill she used in this investigation, and remarked,

When we did the caffeine lab I observed my heart rate and pulse every two minutes and made notes on it. Observing makes it easier for me to understand [the effects of caffeine].

Instruction for the routine skills required for all experimental work was integrated in a similar fashion into each of the different curricular units and content areas. Additional examples of student responses to the postlab reflection reveal the variety of scientific processes emphasized by different students and for other experiments and activities (see Supplemental Table S2). Student reflections were first assessed informally by checking in with each student individually before his or her completed reflection was accepted. This informal assessment served to corroborate students’ self-assessment or to ask them to revise their responses until they matched the instructor's assessment of their mastery. Individual attention to students as they wrote their reflections was easy to manage, could be done quickly, and helped push students further in their understanding. For example, another student, who also focused on observation for a different laboratory activity, said,

I think observing is a more nature skill everyone has [ sic ]. I personally specialize with that skill because I’m always check[ing] new things and experiments out whenever something seems interesting.

The student was asked to be more specific after the instructor checked in, at which time the student added,

For example, when I had to dissect a cow's eye. I had to first examine and observe its outside.

While this student struggled to express himself articulately, this practice helped him advance his understanding of what approaches are important in scientific experiments. All of the students, in both groups 1 and 2, engaged in the same inquiry lessons at the same point in the curriculum. For example, in the case of the caffeine experiment, all students were instructed similarly to choose controls to address different variables, record data in tables, and analyze data with graphs. The two groups only differed in their use of additional tools that supplemented each inquiry lesson (see the following section).

Evidence of Gains in SSKI

For determining whether the Science Skills tools designed for this study were effective in promoting student inquiry and scientific thinking, student responses were evaluated for the pre-, mid-, and postassessment question 2 on the Science Skills assessment (see Methods ). Two different groups of students participated in the study: group 2 was instructed to use the Science Skills tools in the first half of the year; during this same instructional time, group 1 was being taught to use the Group Collaboration tools ( Figure 3 ). The learning goals, sequence of content taught, group projects, experiments, and activities were otherwise identical in both groups. Thus, group 1 served as a no-treatment comparison for the Science Skills treatment group 2, until the second half of the year, when both groups used both types of instruction and assessment tools ( Table 1 ). Student responses for both groups were analyzed using the SSKI rubric ( Figure 2 ) to measure the extent to which students made links between specific skills and their importance for science.

Results of this analysis revealed that students who used the Science Skills tools are better able to name and explain scientific-thinking strategies than their peers who did not use the same tools ( Table 2 ). The average scores for responses from both groups started at a similar level, as a two-sample t test revealed there was no significant difference ( p = 0.55). When the average pre- and midassessment KI scores for each student were compared, the change in scores for the no-treatment comparison group 1 was not statistically significant, as revealed by a one-sided paired t test ( p = 0.88). However, for group 2, which received the Science Skills treatment, each student's score improved on average by 0.44 at midsemester, demonstrating a statistically significant difference in KI ( p = 0.021). By the end of the school year, after both groups of students had received the Science Skills treatment, the average improvement on the assessment for group 1 was 1.1, and for group 2, it was 0.67. The average improvement in KI for each group pre- to postassessment is highly statistically significant ( p values were 0.00053 and 0.0048, respectively).

Students increase KI after using Science Skills instruction and assessment tools a

a This analysis was done on student responses to question 2 on the Science Skills assessment (“Name three skills that you think are important for doing science well, and explain why you picked them.”). A one-sided paired t test with 18 (or 17) degrees of freedom was performed for group 1 and group 2 changes in average KI scores, respectively. The null hypothesis was that there was no change and the average difference from pre- to midassessment or from pre- to postassessment was 0.

Effect size, which helps determine the extent to which statistically significant changes are likely to be meaningful, was also calculated ( Cohen, 1992 ). Consistently, Cohen's d measurements revealed that the Science Skills treatment for group 2 had a modest effect size midyear ( d = 0.57). By the end of the year, when both groups had received the treatment, an even larger effect size was seen ( d = 1.0 and d = 0.70, respectively; see Table 2B ). Similar patterns were seen from analysis of question 5 responses, in which students clearly identified science skills when describing their own particular strengths in science, confirming the results obtained with question 2 (unpublished data).

Further analysis of student responses for the Science Skills assessment was done to gain additional insight on the distribution of the student scores for pre-, mid-, and postassessment of these two groups ( Figure 4 ). A box plot reveals that the distribution was similar for both groups at the beginning of the year and for group 1 at midyear, before receiving the Science Skills treatment. However, the distribution shifted higher for group 2 midyear and for both groups at the end of the year, after both received the Science Skills treatment, confirming that students show gains in KI only after using these instruction and assessment tools.

Box plots reveal differences in the distribution of KI scores after students use Science Skills instruction and assessment tools. Group 1 (white boxes) used the Science Skills tools only after they were assessed midyear ( n = 19); group 2 (gray boxes) used Science Skills tools from the beginning of the course, were assessed at midyear, and continued use of the tools through the end of the year ( n = 18). Note that the dark lines represent the median; the boxes include 50% of the data, representing the 1st to the 3rd quartile; 90% of the data is within the whiskers; and open circles represent outliers. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the same data set as is analyzed in Table 2 and Figure 5 .

Not only did students show increases in average KI scores for treatment groups, but comparison of individual students’ scores for different assessments using scatter plots ( Figure 5 ) revealed that most students showed an increase from a lower KI score to a higher score after they had used the Science Skills instructional and assessment tools. A comparison of pre- and midassessment scores ( Figure 5A ) shows that most students in the no-treatment group 1 tended to score the same or worse, whereas most students in the Science Skills treatment group 2 had immediately increased their understanding of science skills at the midyear point. In comparing pre- and postassessment scores, Figure 5B shows that students in both groups had improved KI scores at the end of the year. Thus, there is a clear relationship between increased student understanding of science skills and the use of the Science Skills tools.

Scatter plots reveal increases in individual student's KI scores after using Science Skills instruction and assessment tools. (A) Comparison of pre- and midassessment scores for each student. (B) Comparison of pre- and postassessment scores for each student. Data points were jittered in the R Software Environment so that all were visible. A red line with a slope of 1 indicates no improvement; points above the line indicate increased improvement; points below the line indicate decreased improvement. Note that the data set is the same as that analyzed in Table 2 and Figure 4 .

Comparing Science Skills and Group Collaboration Treatments

Among many skills important for successful inquiry is group collaboration because the outcome of scientific projects and experiments depends on how well groups in classrooms or research laboratories function. In addition to helping students see collaboration as an important skill for scientific research, a goal for the introduction of Group Collaboration tools was for students to learn to appreciate collaborative group work more as an effective way to accomplish a significant science project. For assessing whether this goal was met, the five-level Likert-scale responses to the simple query in question 3 on the Science Skills assessment were analyzed by comparing the average change in KI scores for each student. For group 1, who had received the Group Collaboration treatment from the beginning of the year, an average of only 21% of the students had immediately increased their appreciation of group work at the midyear point; by the end of the year, 37% of the students on average increased their appreciation of group work as they continued to use the tools (as seen by comparing pre- and midassessments, and pre- and postassessments, respectively). For the no-treatment group 2, a surprising average of 33% of the students appreciated group work more when midyear responses were compared with those from the beginning of the year, but by the end of the year, this number had on average regressed back to the preassessment average (i.e., 0% of the students showed an increased appreciation of group work, the reason for which cannot be explained at this time). Thus evaluation of pre-, mid-, and postassessment of the scientific collaboration treatment did not reveal any relationship between the Group Collaboration treatment and gains made in the appreciation students had for group work.

Analysis of Group Collaboration Reflection Responses

Another goal for promoting scientific collaboration with the use of Group Collaboration tools was to improve awareness of what it takes to collaborate successfully, including that successful collaboration means sharing ideas, distributing work, using time efficiently, and decision making. Responses to the Group Collaboration reflection revealed that students’ self-assessment was both reflective and honest (see Table 3 for illustrative examples from each of these categories). The accuracy of their responses matched that of the teacher's own assessment, which frequently aligned well with students’ self-assessments. For example, Student E discussed a common issue for group work, referring to the group needing to pace itself in order to better meet the project deadline. Additionally, different students on the same team often responded similarly, even though they had completed their reflections independently. Almost every student discussed some things they did well, at the exemplary level, and some things they could improve on, at the developing or beginner level. Interestingly, different groups of students answered differently, emphasizing that the categories outlined on the rubric are each important for collaborative work in a science class. Moreover, each assessment revealed that only about half of the students indicated they had reached what they considered to be the exemplary level on any of the five categories.

Example Group Collaboration reflection responses

a Note that misspelled words were corrected for clarity.

New approaches for teaching and assessing scientific skills and practices are critical for producing scientifically literate citizens ( NGSS, 2013 ). This work shows that student understanding of scientific inquiry can be significantly increased by using instruction and assessment tools aimed at promoting development of specific inquiry skills. The success of the Science Skills approach can be attributed to being explicit with students about what skills are particularly important for progress in science, introducing specific terminology for experimentation, encouraging student self-assessment, and assessing scientific thinking in addition to content. Such strategies also place an emphasis on developing the academic language necessary for communicating in science and improving literacy ( Snow, 2010 ).

Overall the analysis of responses to the pre-, mid-, and postassessments revealed that students expressed an increasing awareness of who they are as scientists and developed a more specific vocabulary for discussing experimentation and their strengths in science compared with students who had not used the same tools, meeting one of the key learning outcome goals for this classroom. Moreover, this new assessment approach enabled the teacher to work individually with struggling students to help them master critical skills; it was these students who often showed the greatest gains in learning how to talk about their experimental work (unpublished data). Not only do such assessments evaluate the extent to which students understand experimental skills, but they also serve as a tool for learning the skills and vocabulary themselves; assessments that accomplish both goals simultaneously have been dubbed “learning tests” by Linn and Chiu (2011) .

While clear learning gains were made for KI of scientific inquiry skills, the tools designed to promote a better understanding of group collaboration were not as successful. Several interpretations could account for why the collaboration treatment was not as effective, including: 1) in contrast to science skills, group work is something with which students already have a lot of experience, as well as the vocabulary for describing strengths and limitations of good collaboration; 2) the maturity level of high school students makes the social interactions required for negotiating tasks like sharing work and making decisions difficult; 3) the measure was not optimal, for example, the pre–post questions did not fully elicit what students understood about scientific collaboration; and 4) implementation of the Group Collaboration rubric was not ideal. Plans for improving the measure and its implementation in the future include probing student understanding of group work with other questions, guiding students to be more specific in their responses, and performing more formative assessment and collecting suggestions for improvement from the students during the project group work. Despite limited success with these measures, from the teacher's perspective, the author found that listening to students discuss the Group Collaboration rubric and reading student responses for the Group Collaboration reflection were useful for understanding class patterns of what was working and not working for the students during collaborative work, as well as for uncovering problems with group dynamics for particular student teams. Although classroom group work is known to be difficult to implement effectively ( Cohen et al. , 1999 ), it is also an important component of successful teaching and is thus worthy of further investigation.

Action Research on Classroom Practices

When introducing a new teaching strategy, it is often difficult to determine its impact in isolation from other instructional approaches used in the classroom. While many instructors are interested in testing new teaching approaches in their own classrooms, questions of ethics quickly arise when one considers exposing some students to new strategies designed to improve learning, while a control group may not benefit from those same experimental strategies. Moreover, randomized field trials, the current gold standard for educational research, are impractical for the typical K–12 or college classroom instructor. Nonetheless, there is a need for improvement of scientific approaches to science education ( Wieman, 2007 ; Asai, 2011 ). Teacher research, also known as teacher inquiry or action research, is an intentional and systematic approach to educational research in which data are collected and analyzed by individual teachers in their own classrooms to improve their teaching practices ( Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993 ). This teacher-driven action research project served to improve the author's own teaching practice and is an example for other instructors on how to manage effective educational research while teaching high school, undergraduate, or graduate classes. Not only did these findings provide evidence for the educational benefits of the Science Skills approach to promoting scientific inquiry, but research in the context of the author's own classroom also allowed her to question the Group Collaboration approach and plan next steps for making it more effective. Being involved in an action research group can be a valuable professional development opportunity for any instructor, as it provides an opportunity to reflect on teaching strategies, engage in data analysis of student work, learn from colleagues, and consequently improve teaching practice.

Applications for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education

While this study is set in a high school context, lessons learned can easily transfer to introductory life sciences courses at the undergraduate level. The experimental design shown in Figure 3 allows the instructor to simultaneously test two treatments with two different groups of students, with each group serving as a no-treatment comparison for the other. This experimental design can be applied to any classroom situation in which the student population can be divided into two groups for two independent interventions. Examples of other contexts for which this design could be useful are parallel discussion or laboratory sections for the same undergraduate course or a large lecture format that can be divided into two groups to test the impact of implementing two independent teaching strategies. The KI perspective described here is a promising framework with which to evaluate the effectiveness of both K–12 and undergraduate student learning in life sciences education.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

I thank Marcia Linn and her research group; Marnie Curry, Jessica Quindel, and other teacher colleagues with Project IMPACT; and Nicci Nunes, Heeju Jang, Michelle Sinapuelas, Jack Kamm, Deborah Nolan, and others who have inspired the work, encouraged me to write an article describing the study, and generously given me feedback.

• Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman NG. Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. Intl J Sci Ed. 2000; 22 :665–701. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Blueprints for Reform: Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. Oxford University Press, New York, chap. 8: 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• AAAS. 2009. Vision and Change: A Call to Action. www.visionandchange.org (accessed 15 November 2012) [ Google Scholar ]
• Aronson BD, Silviera LA. From genes to protein to behavior: a laboratory that enhances student understanding in cell and molecular biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2009; 8 :291–308. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asai DJ. Measuring student development. Science. 2011; 332 :895. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes D, Britton J, Torbe M. Language, the Learner and the School. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook- Heinemann; 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Casotti G, Rieser-Danner L, Knabb MT. Successful implementation of inquiry-based physiology laboratories in undergraduate major and nonmajor courses. Adv Physiol Educ. 2008; 32 :286–296. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cochran-Smith M, Lytle S. Inside Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen EG, Lotan RA, Scarloss BA, Arellano AR. Complex instruction: equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theor Pract. 1999; 38 :80–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1992; 92 :98–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curry MW. Critical Friends Groups: the possibilities and limitations embedded in teacher professional communities aimed at instructional improvement and school reform. Teachers College Record. 2008; 110 :733–774. [ Google Scholar ]
• Derting TL, Ebert-May D. Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology: positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010; 9 :462–472. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. 1916. Democracy and Education, New York: The McMillan Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Education Data Partnership . 2010. Fiscal, Demographic, and Performance Data on California's K–12 Schools. www.ed-data.k12.ca.us (accessed 15 November 2012) [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldman J. In: Teaching without Bells: What We Can Learn from Powerful Practice in Small Schools. Boulder, CO: Paradigm; 2010. Large and small high schools: Some key comparisons; pp. 21–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haberman M. The Pedagogy of Poverty versus Good Teaching. New York: Education News; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalamuck KE, the Exploratorium Teacher Institute . Human Body Explorations: Hands-on Investigations of What Makes Us Tick. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lau JM, Robinson GL. Effectiveness of a cloning and sequencing exercise on student learning with subsequent publication in the National Center for Biotechnology GenBank. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2009; 8 :326–337. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell RL. If we want to talk the talk, we must also walk the walk: the nature of science, professional development, and educational reform. In: Rhoton J, Bowers P, editors. Professional Development: Planning and Design. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linn MC. The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In: Sawyer RK, editor. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 243–264. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linn MC, Chiu J. Combining learning and assessment to improve science education. Res Pract Assess. 2011; 5 :4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linn ML, Lee H-S, Tinker R, Husic F, Chiu JL. Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science. 2006; 313 :1049–1050. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu OL, Lee H-S, Hofstetter C, Linn MC. Assessing knowledge integration in science: construct, measures and evidence. Educ Assess. 2008; 13 :33–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord T, Orkwiszewski T. Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. Am Biol Teach. 2006; 68 :342–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marieb EN. 8th ed. San Francisco: Pearson/Benjamin Cummings; 2006. Essentials of Human Anatomy and Physiology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moses B. Radical Equations: Civil Rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Boston: Beacon; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institutes of Health. The Brain: Understanding Neurobiology through the Study of Addiction, Curriculum Supplement Series. Colorado Springs, CO/Seattle, WA: BSCS Press/Videodiscovery; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (NRC) National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• NRC. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• NRC. BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Next Generation Science Standards . 2013. NGSS home page. www.nextgenscience.org (accessed 25 June 2013) [ Google Scholar ]
• R Software Environment . 2013. The R Project for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org (accessed 25 June 2013) [ Google Scholar ]
• Ribarič S, Kordaš M. Teaching cardiovascular physiology with equivalent electronic circuits in a practically oriented teaching module. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011; 35 :149–160. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rissing SW, Cogan JG. Can an inquiry approach improve college student learning in a teaching laboratory. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2009; 8 :55–61. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryoo K, Linn MC. Can dynamic visualizations improve middle school students’ understanding of energy in photosynthesis. J Res Sci Teach. 2012; 49 :218–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siritunga D, Montero-Rojas M, Carrero K, Toro G, Vèlez A, Carrero-Martìnez FA. Culturally relevant inquiry-based laboratory module implementations in upper-division genetics and cell biology teaching laboratories. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011; 10 :287–297. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow CE. Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science. 2010; 328 :450–452. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stata Data Analyis and Statistical Software . 2012. Stata/IC, Version 11. www.stata.com (accessed 15 November 2012) [ Google Scholar ]
• Stigler J, Heibert J. The Teaching Gap: The Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tate ED, Clark DB, Gallagher JJ, McLaughlin D. Designing science instruction for diverse learners. In: Kali Y, Linn MC, Roseman JE, editors. Designing Coherent Science Education: Implications for Curriculum, Instruction, and Policy. New York: Teachers College Press; 2008. pp. 65–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Treacy DJ, Sankaran SM, Gordon-Messer S, Saly D, Rebecca Miller R, Isaac RS, Kosinski-Collins MS. Implementation of a project-based molecular biology laboratory emphasizing protein structure–function relationships in a large introductory biology laboratory course. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011; 10 :18–24. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wieman C. Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change (Sept/Oct) 2007:9–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• WISE . 2012. The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment. wise.berkeley.edu (accessed 15 November 2012) [ Google Scholar ]
• Zion M, Spektor-Levy O, Orchan Y, Shwartz A, Sadeh I, Kark S. Tracking invasive birds: a programme for implementing dynamic open inquiry learning and conservation education. J Biol Educ. 2011; 45 :3–12. [ Google Scholar ]

Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (2000)

Chapter: 1 inquiry in science and in classrooms, 1 inquiry in science and in classrooms.

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

As pointed out in the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), students who use inquiry to learn science engage in many of the same activities and thinking processes as scientists who are seeking to expand human knowledge of the natural world. Yet the activities and thinking processes used by scientists are not always familiar to the educator seeking to introduce inquiry into the classroom. By describing inquiry in both science and in classrooms, this volume explores the many facets of inquiry in science education. Through examples and discussion, it shows how students and teachers can use inquiry to learn how to do science, learn about the nature of science, and learn science content.

A good way to begin this investigation is to compare the methods and thinking process of a practicing scientist with the activities of an inquiry-based science lesson. The stories in this chapter set the stage for many of the themes to follow. The sidebars suggest some important aspects of the investigations of both scientists and students.

INQUIRY IN SCIENCE

A geologist who was mapping coastal deposits in the state of Washington was surprised to discover a forest of dead cedar trees near the shore. A significant portion were still standing, but they clearly had been dead for many years. He found similar

Makes observations

stands of dead trees at other places along the coast in both Oregon and Washington. He wondered, “What

could have killed so many trees over so wide an area?”

Reflecting on his knowledge of earthquakes, crustal plate boundaries, and subsidence along coastlines, the geologist searched for possible explanations. “Did the trees die at the same time?” “Was their death related to nearby volcanic activity or some kind of biological blight?” “Given their coastal location, was there some relationship between the salt water and the destruction of the forests?”

Exhibits curiosity, defines questions, from knowledge background

He pursued his first question by dating the outer rings of the trees using carbon 14 radiometric methods. He found that they all had died about 300 years ago. As for the cause of the trees’ death, his mapping indicated no evidence for widespread volcanic deposits in the areas of dead forests. Furthermore, the trees were not burned, nor did careful examination indicate any evidence of insect infestation.

Gathers evidence using technology and mathematics

The geologist began thinking about the possible role of salt water in killing the trees. He recalled that a large section of the Alaskan coast dropped below sea level in 1964 when the tectonic plate that underlies much of the Pacific Ocean plunged beneath the North American tectonic plate that Alaska sits on as the result of a major “subduction zone earthquake.” Many square miles of coastal forests in Alaska died when the coastline dropped and they were submerged in salt water following the earthquake. He knew that a similar subduction zone lies beneath the Washington and Oregon coast and gives rise to the volcanoes of the Cascade mountains. He wondered whether the trees in Washington and Oregon might have been drowned by sea water when a large section of the coast subsided during an earthquake 300 years ago.

Uses previous research

To check this explanation, he collected more data. He examined the sediments in the area. Well-preserved sections of sediment exposed in the banks of streams inland from the stands of dead trees showed a clean

Propose a possible explanation

layer of sand below the soil — unlike any of the dark, clay-rich soil above and below the sand. “Where did the white sand come from?” he wondered.

The geologist knew that subduction zone earthquakes often produce tsunamis — tidal waves. He thought the sand layer could be sand washed ashore during a tsunami. If so, this would be further evidence of a major coastal earthquake. Fossils recovered from the sand layer indicated the sand came from the ocean rather than being washed down from inland, supporting the tsunami hypothesis.

He published several articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals hypothesizing that the dead trees and sand layer found along the coast were evidence that a major earthquake occurred about 300 years ago, just before European settlers arrived in the region (Atwater, 1987; Nelson et al., 1995).

Publishes explanation based on evidence

Several years later a Japanese seismologist, who was studying historic tide gauge records in Japan to document tsunamis from distant sources, identified a major earthquake somewhere along the Pacific rim on January 17, 1700, but the source of the earthquake was open to debate. Using historical records he was able to eliminate the possibility of a large earthquake from most known earthquake source regions around the Pacific. Aware of the geologist’s work on dead forests in the Pacific northwest, the Japanese seismologist suggested that the source of the tsunami was a large subduction zone earthquake beneath present day Oregon and Washington (Satake et al., 1996).

Considers new evidence

Now the geologist had more evidence supporting his explanation that the sand layer was caused by a tsunami that accompanied an earthquake. Further examination of coastal sediments uncovered additional, but older, remains of dead trees and sand layers. He now thinks that earthquakes producing very large tsunamis, like the one he first identified, have repeatedly struck the Pacific Northwest coast in the past thousand years, just as these large earthquakes strike other subduction zones beneath Japan, the Philippines, Alaska, and much of Western South America. The coastal subsidence caused by the earthquake submerged the trees in salt water, which led to their death.

Adds to explanation

As sometimes occurs with scientific research, the geologist’s findings influenced public policy. Public officials have revised the building codes for Washington and Oregon, based on the deeper understanding of earthquakes that grew out of this research. New buildings must be designed to resist earthquake forces 50 percent larger than under the old code.

Explanation informs public policy

This story illustrates several important features of scientific inquiry. A scientist noticed a phenomenon and had the curiosity to ask

questions about it. No doubt many other people had also noticed the dead trees, but they either did not wonder about the cause of death or were not in a position to answer the question. Using his knowledge of geology and what he learned about trees and their habitats, the geologist made connections between the dead trees and other features of the environment, such as the coastal location. Those questions guided his investigation, which included the use of carbon 14 methods to date the dead trees and the gathering of available knowledge about the geology of the region. He developed an explanation for the death of the trees based on this preliminary evidence and gathered more evidence to test his explanation. He then published articles in which he discussed the relationship between the evidence he accumulated and the explanation he proposed. Later, a scientist in another part of the world read the publications and, because

Geologist’s report of his findings published in the journal Nature

scientists use universal descriptions and measurements, was able to compare his findings with those of the American scientist. The Japanese scientist obtained separate evidence — the occurrence of a tsunami on January 17, 1700 — that gave further support to the hypothesis that a subduction zone earthquake occurring on that date led to the death of a large number of trees along the Pacific Northwest coast.

THE NATURE OF HUMAN INQUIRY

The geologist’s search for understanding of the natural world is a good illustration of the human characteristics that make inquiry such a powerful way of learning. Humans are innately curious, as anyone knows who has watched a newborn. From birth, children employ trial-and-error techniques to learn about the world around them. As children and as adults, when faced with an unknown situation, we try to determine what is happening and predict what will happen next. We reflect on the world around us by observing, gathering, assembling, and synthesizing information. We develop and use tools to measure and observe as well as to analyze information and create models. We check and re-check what we think will happen and compare results to what we already know. We change our ideas based on what we learn.

This complex set of thinking abilities, which helped early humans gather food and escape danger, constitutes the highly developed capacity we refer to as inquiry. In recent human history, some people have directed their curiosity toward issues other than subsistence and survival — for example, the movement of celestial objects, the causes of seasons, the behavior of moving objects, and the origins of organisms. Curiosity about such issues is unique to humans. People studied these phenomena, developing hypotheses and proposing explanations. The communication of hypotheses, ideas, and concepts among individuals shaped the strategies, rules, standards, and knowledge that we recognize today as scientific.

Inquiry into the natural world takes a wide variety of forms. It can range from a child’s wondering how it is possible for ants to live underground to the search by groups of physicists for new atomic particles. Inquiry in classrooms also takes a wide variety of forms, as described later in this volume. But whatever its exact form, its role in education is becoming an increasing focus of attention. Today the world is being profoundly influenced by scientific discoveries. People need to make and evaluate decisions that require careful questioning, seeking of evidence, and critical reasoning. Learning environments that concentrate on conveying

to students what scientists already know do not promote inquiry. Rather, an emphasis on inquiry asks that we think about what we know, why we know, and how we have come to know.

Inquiry is at the heart of the National Science Education Standards . The Standards seek to promote curriculum, instruction, and assessment models that enable teachers to build on children’s natural, human inquisitiveness. In this way, teachers can help all their students understand science as a human endeavor, acquire the scientific knowledge and thinking skills important in everyday life and, if their students so choose, in pursuing a scientific career.

INQUIRY IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM

One of the best ways to understand school science as inquiry is through a visit to a classroom where scientific inquiry is practiced. The following vignette features a particular grade, but, as illustrated throughout this book, classroom inquiry can and does happen at all grade levels. Sidebars point out some ways inquiry is occurring.

Several of the children in Mrs. Graham’s fifth grade class were excited when they returned to their room after recess one fall day. They pulled their teacher over to a window, pointed outside, and said, “We noticed something about the trees on the playground. What’s wrong with them?” Mrs. Graham didn’t know what they were concerned about, so she said, “Show me what you mean.”

The students pointed to three trees growing side by side. One had lost all its leaves, the middle one had multicolored leaves — mostly yellow — and the third had lush, green leaves. The children said, “Why are those three trees different? They used to look the same, didn’t they?” Mrs. Graham didn’t know the answer.

Mrs. Graham knew

that her class was scheduled to study plants later in the year, and this was an opportunity for them to investigate questions about plant growth that they had originated and thus were especially motivated to answer. Although she was uncertain about where her students’ questions would lead, Mrs. Graham chose to take the risk of letting her students pursue investigations under her guidance. After all, they had had some experience last year in examining how seeds grow under different conditions. She hung up a large sheet of butcher paper where all the students could see it and said, “Let’s make a list of ideas that might explain what’s happening to those three trees outside.” A forest of hands went up:

Exhibit curiosity, define questions from current knowledge

It has something to do with the sunlight.

It must be too much water.

It must not be enough water.

The trees look different. They used to look the same.

It’s the season, some trees lose their leaves earlier than others.

There is poison in the ground.

The trees have different ages.

Insects are eating the trees.

One tree is older than the others.

Propose preliminary explanations or hypotheses

When the students were satisfied that they had enough ideas, Mrs. Graham encouraged them to think about which of their ideas were possible explanations that could be investigated and which were descriptions. She then invited each student to pick one explanation that he or she thought might be an answer. She grouped the students by choices: There was a “water group”, a “seasons” group, an “insects” group, and so on. She asked each group to plan and conduct a simple investigation to see if they could find any evidence that answered their question. As they planned their investigations, Mrs. Graham visited each group of students

Plan and conduct simple investigation

and carefully listened as they formulated their plans. She then asked each group to explain their ideas to their classmates, resulting in further refinement. Using this quick and public assessment of where they were, she was able to help them think about the processes they were using to address their question and consider whether other approaches might work better.

Gather evidence from observation

For the next three weeks, science periods were set aside for each group

to carry out its investigation. The groups used a variety of sources to gather information about characteristics of trees, their life cycles, and their environments. For example, the “different ages” group answered their question fairly quickly. They contacted the PTA members who were involved in planting that part of the playground and found the original receipts for the purchase of the trees. A check with the nursery indicated that all three trees were identical and of approximately the same age when purchased. As some groups completed their investigations early, Mrs. Graham invited their members to join other groups still in progress.

Explain based on evidence

The water group decided to look at the ground around the trees every hour that they could. They took turns and jointly kept a journal of their individual observations. Since some students lived near the school, their observations continued after school hours and on weekends. They missed some hourly observations, but they had sufficient data to report to the class. “The tree without leaves is almost always standing in water, the middle tree is sometimes standing in water, and the green tree has damp ground but is never standing in water.”

One of the students recalled that several months ago the leaves on one of his mother’s geraniums had begun to turn yellow. She told him that the geranium was getting too much water. Mrs. Graham gave the group a pamphlet from a local nursery entitled “Growing Healthy Plants.” The water group read the pamphlet and found that when plant roots are surrounded by water, they cannot take in air from the space around the roots and they essentially “drown.” Based on their observations and the information they obtained from the pamphlet, the students concluded that the leafless tree was drowning, the middle tree was “kinda” drowning, and the third one was “just right.”

Consider other explanations

The water group continued its work by investigating the source of the water. They found that the school custodian turned on a lawn sprinkler system three times a week. He left it running longer than necessary, and the excess water ran off the lawn and collected at the base of the trees. Since the ground was sloped, most of the water collected at one end of the tree-growing area. Together with the other groups, they reported their results to the rest of the class.

As different groups gave their reports, the class learned that some observations and information — such as those from the group investigating whether the trees were different — did not explain the observations. The results of other investigations, such as the idea that the trees could have a disease, partly supported the observations. But the explanation that seemed most reasonable to the students, that fit all the observations and conformed with what they had

Communicate explanation

learned from other sources, was too much water. After their three weeks of work, the class was satisfied that together they had found a reasonable answer to their question. At Mrs. Graham’s suggestion, they wrote a letter to the custodian telling him what they had found. The custodian came to class and thanked them. He said he would change his watering procedure and he did. Mrs. Graham then asked the students how they could find out if their explanation was correct. After some discussion they decided that they would have to wait until next year and see if all the trees got healthy again.

The following year, during the same month that they had observed the discrepancy, all three trees were fully clothed with green leaves. Mrs. Graham’s former students were now even more convinced that what they had concluded was a valid explanation for their observations.

Test explanation

PARALLELS BETWEEN INQUIRY IN EDUCATION AND IN SCIENCE

One is struck by the parallels between Mrs. Graham’s class and the inquiring geologist. The geologist began his investigation with a question about an unusual and intriguing observation of nature. So did Mrs. Graham’s children. The scientist then undertook a closer examination of the environment — asked new and more focused questions — and proposed an explanation for what he observed, applying his knowledge of plate tectonics. The children applied their knowledge to formulate several explanations and new questions before undertaking further investigations. The scientist, knowing of investigations by other scientists, used their findings to confirm the validity of his original explanation. In Mrs. Graham’s class, groups whose explanations were not confirmed lent strength to the “excess water” explanation. The geologist published his findings. The children “published” their findings in their reports to their classmates and later in a letter to the custodian. Although scientific research does not always influence public policy, the geologist’s discoveries resulted in building code revisions in Washington and Oregon. The children’s investigations led to revised lawn watering procedures at their school.

Inquiry in the classroom can take many forms. Investigations can be highly structured by the teacher so that students proceed toward known outcomes, such as discovering regularities in the movement of pendulums (as noted in the Foreword and in the classroom vignette on pages 146-147 of the National Science Education Standards ). Or investigations can be free-ranging explorations of unexplained phenomena, like the tree leaf discrepancies in Mrs. Graham’s schoolyard. The form that inquiry

takes depends largely on the educational goals for students, and because these goals are diverse, highly structured and more open-ended inquiries both have their place in science classrooms.

The chapters that follow explore the dimensions of teaching and learning science as inquiry across a broad range of ages and scientific topics. The intention is to improve the quality of student learning by enabling them to acquire the abilities of inquiry, develop knowledge of scientific ideas, and understand the work of scientists.

Humans, especially children, are naturally curious. Yet, people often balk at the thought of learning science—the "eyes glazed over" syndrome. Teachers may find teaching science a major challenge in an era when science ranges from the hardly imaginable quark to the distant, blazing quasar.

Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards is the book that educators have been waiting for—a practical guide to teaching inquiry and teaching through inquiry, as recommended by the National Science Education Standards. This will be an important resource for educators who must help school boards, parents, and teachers understand "why we can't teach the way we used to."

"Inquiry" refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and in which students grasp science knowledge and the methods by which that knowledge is produced. This book explains and illustrates how inquiry helps students learn science content, master how to do science, and understand the nature of science.

This book explores the dimensions of teaching and learning science as inquiry for K-12 students across a range of science topics. Detailed examples help clarify when teachers should use the inquiry-based approach and how much structure, guidance, and coaching they should provide.

The book dispels myths that may have discouraged educators from the inquiry-based approach and illuminates the subtle interplay between concepts, processes, and science as it is experienced in the classroom. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards shows how to bring the standards to life, with features such as classroom vignettes exploring different kinds of inquiries for elementary, middle, and high school and Frequently Asked Questions for teachers, responding to common concerns such as obtaining teaching supplies.

Turning to assessment, the committee discusses why assessment is important, looks at existing schemes and formats, and addresses how to involve students in assessing their own learning achievements. In addition, this book discusses administrative assistance, communication with parents, appropriate teacher evaluation, and other avenues to promoting and supporting this new teaching paradigm.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Distance Learning
• Director's Circle
• Sustainability
• Smithsonian Science for the Classroom
• Smithsonian Science Stories
• STC Curriculum
• Smithsonian Science for Global Goals
• Explore Smithsonian
• Free Resources
• Smithsonian Science for Makerspaces
• Girls and Women in STEM
• Smithsonian Science for Computational Thinking
• Women in STEM eBook Series
• Space STEM Resources
• Space STEM Career Resources
• Smithsonian Science for NC and SC Classrooms
• Smithsonian Science Education Academies for Teachers
• Good Thinking!
• Quick Tips for Teachers
• English Learners in STEM
• Upcoming Events
• Action Planning Institute
• Building Awareness for Science Education
• Strategic Planning Institute
• Next Steps Institute
• STEM Diversity
• Zero Barriers in STEM
• Network for Emergent Socio-Scientific Thinking (NESST)
• Where We Are
• Smithsonian Science for Summer School (S4)
• Always Thinking Like A Scientist (ATLAS)
• STEM Literacy Project
• Success Stories
• France in Focus
• Smithsonian Science for Global Goals Research
• Smithsonian Youth STEM Exchange
• STEMvisions Blog

What is Inquiry-Based Science?

Dr. Robyn M. Gillies is a professor in the School of Education at The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. For over 20 years, she has researched the effects of cooperative learning on students' learning in science, mathematics, and social science content areas at the elementary and secondary levels. She has researched inquiry-based science in the classroom and has published her findings in many international journals, including the International Journal of Educational Research, Pedagogies: An International Journal, and Teaching Education. The extent of Dr. Gillies work in education is far reaching; she is the author of over 80 journal articles, two books, and nearly 20 book chapters. The SSEC recently contacted Dr. Gillies in hopes that she could provide valuable insight for our LASER i3 teachers. Dr. Gillies graciously agreed. Thank you, Dr. Gillies!

First, can you explain your interest in education and in inquiry-based science, specifically?

For about 20 years I have been researching the effects of cooperative learning on students' learning in science, mathematics, and social science content areas in elementary and secondary schools, and the majority of the findings have indicated that cooperative learning where students work together to investigate a problem or solve a dilemma can be used successfully to promote student engagement, socialization, and learning. Parallel to this research has been my interest in science and my concerns that teachers often seem reluctant to teach it in a way that is problem-based where student have opportunities to work together to investigate a topic. I have also been concerned for some time in the relatively mediocre performances of many students in Australia, the USA, and the UK on standardized international tests such as PISA and TIMMS, particularly when I see how consistently successful Finland, Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei, and Japan have been on these same tests. In a sense, I've realized that cooperative learning with its emphasis on group cooperation and investigation can be used as a tool to help teachers teach science in a way that taps into students' natural curiosity to explore their world.

What is inquiry-based science?

Inquiry-based science adopts an investigative approach to teaching and learning where students are provided with opportunities to investigate a problem, search for possible solutions, make observations, ask questions, test out ideas, and think creatively and use their intuition. In this sense, inquiry-based science involves students doing science where they have opportunities to explore possible solutions, develop explanations for the phenomena under investigation, elaborate on concepts and processes, and evaluate or assess their understandings in the light of available evidence. This approach to teaching relies on teachers recognizing the importance of presenting problems to students that will challenge their current conceptual understandings so they are forced to reconcile anomalous thinking and construct new understandings.

How does inquiry-based science help students?

Inquiry-based science challenges students' thinking by engaging them in investigating scientifically orientated questions where they learn to give priority to evidence, evaluate explanations in the light of alternative explanations and learn to communicate and justify their decisions. These are dispositions needed to promote and justify their decisions. In short, "Scientific inquiry requires the use of evidence, logic, and imagination in developing explanations about the natural world" (Newman et al., 2004, p.258).

How does a teacher know if he/she is successfully teaching science using an inquiry-based approach?

Does inquiry-based science look different in a lower-elementary classroom than in a middle-school classroom?

The principles are the same -- the need to excite and engage students' attention so they want to investigate the topic is critically important at any age. However, the way teachers actually teach it has to be more hands-on, directive or guided, and concrete for younger children.

What are some common misconceptions that teachers have regarding inquiry-based science?

... Teacher[s] often think they are 'doing inquiry' because they are out at the front of the classroom directing the inquiry or investigation or demonstrating how to do it. This is not inquiry science. Inquiry science requires teachers to be able to excite the students' interest in a topic and then provide them with opportunities to undertake the investigation either by themselves or preferably in collaboration with others. The teacher, though, needs to remain active in the lesson, guiding the students and asking questions to help them consolidate their understandings. Providing feedback is critically important to helping students understand how they are progressing.

You have observed many teachers over the years. Can you describe any teachers and/or students who exemplified inquiry-based science?

Good teachers engage students' interest through novelty, something unusual that spurs their curiosity and then they use language that is very dialogic or language that lets the student know that they are interested in what they think or want to say about the topic. Good teachers then carefully guide students as they begin to explore or investigate the topic, being careful not to dominate the conversation but allow student time to develop responses or think about the issue more carefully. In this sense they give students the time to reflect and think more carefully about the issue. However, good teachers are always careful to ensure that the inquiry-based science lesson moves forward and they do this be asking questions that probe and challenge students' thinking as well as giving them feedback that is meaningful and timely. Teachers who do inquiry well tend have a very good understanding of both the content they are teaching and the processes involved. They tend to use language that is very collaborative and friendly and take a genuine interest in what students are doing. They ask questions that challenge students' thinking and they acknowledge students' efforts.

What advice do you have for teachers who do not have a lot of time to teach science? 

Recognize your limitations but try to optimize on what time you have. Be well prepared and try to ensure that science activities are interesting -- stimulate students' interest in science. If they are interested, they will continue to be interested even if they have not covered the full curriculum.

Can you provide an example of higher-level thinking and problem-solving questions that you may see with 7 and 8 year-old students?

Children will engage in higher-level thinking if teachers give them time to talk about a topic. Angela O'Donnell (Rutgers University) demonstrated how this can be achieved through her approach to Scripted Cooperation where two students work together on a topic. One then asks the other to recount as much as possible what they have learned while the listener asks the speaker questions. The students then switch roles and again they recount and ask each other questions. Over time, the questions become more complex so the respondent is compelled to provide more elaborate explanations.

Related Tags

View the discussion thread.

• Behind the Scenes

Popular Posts

• It’s All About the Tilt: Seasons Misconceptions Debunked
• What is Photosynthesis
• Are All Snowflakes Really Different? The Science of Winter
• What Are Clouds?
• What is the Winter Solstice?

Featured Authors

• Brian Mandell, PhD
• Ashley Deese
• Kate Echevarria
• Katya Vines, PhD
• Jean Flanagan
• October (1)
• November (1)
• December (2)
• January (1)
• February (2)
• September (3)
• October (7)
• November (4)
• December (3)
• January (4)
• February (4)
• September (4)
• October (2)
• November (2)
• December (1)
• January (3)
• September (6)
• October (3)
• January (2)
• October (6)
• November (5)
• December (4)
• February (6)
• September (2)
• February (1)
• December (5)
• September (1)
• October (5)
• February (5)
• Terms of Use
• Google Plus

Introduction to Biology

Scientific inquiry, learning outcomes.

• Understand the process of scientific inquiry
• Compare inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning

One thing is common to all forms of science: an ultimate goal “to know.” Curiosity and inquiry are the driving forces for the development of science. Scientists seek to understand the world and the way it operates. Two methods of logical thinking are used: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. This type of reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist such as a biologist makes observations and records them. These data can be qualitative (descriptive) or quantitative (consisting of numbers), and the raw data can be supplemented with drawings, pictures, photos, or videos. From many observations, the scientist can infer conclusions (inductions) based on evidence. Inductive reasoning involves formulating generalizations inferred from careful observation and the analysis of a large amount of data. Brain studies often work this way. Many brains are observed while people are doing a task. The part of the brain that lights up, indicating activity, is then demonstrated to be the part controlling the response to that task.

Deductive reasoning or deduction is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reasoning, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction as compared to inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses a general principle or law to forecast specific results. From those general principles, a scientist can extrapolate and predict the specific results that would be valid as long as the general principles are valid. For example, a prediction would be that if the climate is becoming warmer in a region, the distribution of plants and animals should change. Comparisons have been made between distributions in the past and the present, and the many changes that have been found are consistent with a warming climate. Finding the change in distribution is evidence that the climate change conclusion is a valid one.

Both types of logical thinking are related to the two main pathways of scientific study: descriptive science and hypothesis-based science. Descriptive (or discovery) science aims to observe, explore, and discover, while hypothesis-based science begins with a specific question or problem and a potential answer or solution that can be tested. The boundary between these two forms of study is often blurred, because most scientific endeavors combine both approaches. Observations lead to questions, questions lead to forming a hypothesis as a possible answer to those questions, and then the hypothesis is tested. Thus, descriptive science and hypothesis-based science are in continuous dialogue.

Hypothesis Testing

Figure 1. Sir Francis Bacon is credited with being the first to document the scientific method.

Biologists study the living world by posing questions about it and seeking science-based responses. This approach is common to other sciences as well and is often referred to as the scientific method. The scientific method was used even in ancient times, but it was first documented by England’s Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) (Figure 1), who set up inductive methods for scientific inquiry. The scientific method is not exclusively used by biologists but can be applied to almost anything as a logical problem-solving method.

The scientific process typically starts with an observation (often a problem to be solved) that leads to a question. Let’s think about a simple problem that starts with an observation and apply the scientific method to solve the problem. One Monday morning, a student arrives at class and quickly discovers that the classroom is too warm. That is an observation that also describes a problem: the classroom is too warm. The student then asks a question: “Why is the classroom so warm?”

Recall that a hypothesis is a suggested explanation that can be tested. To solve a problem, several hypotheses may be proposed. For example, one hypothesis might be, “The classroom is warm because no one turned on the air conditioning.” But there could be other responses to the question, and therefore other hypotheses may be proposed. A second hypothesis might be, “The classroom is warm because there is a power failure, and so the air conditioning doesn’t work.”

Once a hypothesis has been selected, a prediction may be made. A prediction is similar to a hypothesis but it typically has the format “If . . . then . . . .” For example, the prediction for the first hypothesis might be, “ If the student turns on the air conditioning, then the classroom will no longer be too warm.”

A hypothesis must be testable to ensure that it is valid. For example, a hypothesis that depends on what a bear thinks is not testable, because it can never be known what a bear thinks. It should also be falsifiable , meaning that it can be disproven by experimental results. An example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is “Botticelli’s Birth of Venus is beautiful.” There is no experiment that might show this statement to be false. To test a hypothesis, a researcher will conduct one or more experiments designed to eliminate one or more of the hypotheses. This is important. A hypothesis can be disproven, or eliminated, but it can never be proven. Science does not deal in proofs like mathematics. If an experiment fails to disprove a hypothesis, then we find support for that explanation, but this is not to say that down the road a better explanation will not be found, or a more carefully designed experiment will be found to falsify the hypothesis.

Scientific inquiry has not displaced faith, intuition, and dreams. These traditions and ways of knowing have emotional value and provide moral guidance to many people. But hunches, feelings, deep convictions, old traditions, or dreams cannot be accepted directly as scientifically valid. Instead, science limits itself to ideas that can be tested through verifiable observations. Supernatural claims that events are caused by ghosts, devils, God, or other spiritual entities cannot be tested in this way.

Practice Question

Your friend sees this image of a circle of mushrooms and excitedly tells you it was caused by fairies dancing in a circle on the grass the night before. Can your friend’s explanation be studied using the process of science?

Each experiment will have one or more variables and one or more controls. A variable is any part of the experiment that can vary or change during the experiment. A control is a part of the experiment that does not change. Look for the variables and controls in the example that follows. As a simple example, an experiment might be conducted to test the hypothesis that phosphate limits the growth of algae in freshwater ponds. A series of artificial ponds are filled with water and half of them are treated by adding phosphate each week, while the other half are treated by adding a salt that is known not to be used by algae. The variable here is the phosphate (or lack of phosphate), the experimental or treatment cases are the ponds with added phosphate and the control ponds are those with something inert added, such as the salt. Just adding something is also a control against the possibility that adding extra matter to the pond has an effect. If the treated ponds show lesser growth of algae, then we have found support for our hypothesis. If they do not, then we reject our hypothesis. Be aware that rejecting one hypothesis does not determine whether or not the other hypotheses can be accepted; it simply eliminates one hypothesis that is not valid (Figure 2). Using the scientific method, the hypotheses that are inconsistent with experimental data are rejected.

Figure 2. The scientific method is a series of defined steps that include experiments and careful observation. If a hypothesis is not supported by data, a new hypothesis can be proposed.

In the example below, the scientific method is used to solve an everyday problem. Which part in the example below is the hypothesis? Which is the prediction? Based on the results of the experiment, is the hypothesis supported? If it is not supported, propose some alternative hypotheses.

• My toaster doesn’t toast my bread.
• Why doesn’t my toaster work?
• There is something wrong with the electrical outlet.
• If something is wrong with the outlet, my coffeemaker also won’t work when plugged into it.
• I plug my coffeemaker into the outlet.
• My coffeemaker works.

In practice, the scientific method is not as rigid and structured as it might at first appear. Sometimes an experiment leads to conclusions that favor a change in approach; often, an experiment brings entirely new scientific questions to the puzzle. Many times, science does not operate in a linear fashion; instead, scientists continually draw inferences and make generalizations, finding patterns as their research proceeds. Scientific reasoning is more complex than the scientific method alone suggests.

• Concepts of Biology. Provided by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected] . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• Practice Question (Scientific Inquiry). Provided by : Open Learning Initiative. Located at : https://oli.cmu.edu/jcourse/workbook/activity/page?context=434a5c2680020ca6017c03488572e0f8 . Project : Introduction to Biology (Open + Free). License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Advertisement

Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education 

Two Distinct but Symbiotically Related Intellectual Processes

• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2023

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Antonio García-Carmona   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5952-0340 1  

4225 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Scientific thinking and critical thinking are two intellectual processes that are considered keys in the basic and comprehensive education of citizens. For this reason, their development is also contemplated as among the main objectives of science education. However, in the literature about the two types of thinking in the context of science education, there are quite frequent allusions to one or the other indistinctly to refer to the same cognitive and metacognitive skills, usually leaving unclear what are their differences and what are their common aspects. The present work therefore was aimed at elucidating what the differences and relationships between these two types of thinking are. The conclusion reached was that, while they differ in regard to the purposes of their application and some skills or processes, they also share others and are related symbiotically in a metaphorical sense; i.e., each one makes sense or develops appropriately when it is nourished or enriched by the other. Finally, an orientative proposal is presented for an integrated development of the two types of thinking in science classes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Philosophical Inquiry and Critical Thinking in Primary and Secondary Science Education

Fostering scientific literacy and critical thinking in elementary science education.

Rui Marques Vieira & Celina Tenreiro-Vieira

Enhancing Scientific Thinking Through the Development of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think. Albert Einstein

1 Introduction

In consulting technical reports, theoretical frameworks, research, and curricular reforms related to science education, one commonly finds appeals to scientific thinking and critical thinking as essential educational processes or objectives. This is confirmed in some studies that include exhaustive reviews of the literature in this regard such as those of Bailin ( 2002 ), Costa et al. ( 2020 ), and Santos ( 2017 ) on critical thinking, and of Klarh et al. ( 2019 ) and Lehrer and Schauble ( 2006 ) on scientific thinking. However, conceptualizing and differentiating between both types of thinking based on the above-mentioned documents of science education are generally difficult. In many cases, they are referred to without defining them, or they are used interchangeably to represent virtually the same thing. Thus, for example, the document A Framework for K-12 Science Education points out that “Critical thinking is required, whether in developing and refining an idea (an explanation or design) or in conducting an investigation” (National Research Council (NRC), 2012 , p. 46). The same document also refers to scientific thinking when it suggests that basic scientific education should “provide students with opportunities for a range of scientific activities and scientific thinking , including, but not limited to inquiry and investigation, collection and analysis of evidence, logical reasoning, and communication and application of information” (NRC, 2012 , p. 251).

A few years earlier, the report Science Teaching in Schools in Europe: Policies and Research (European Commission/Eurydice, 2006 ) included the dimension “scientific thinking” as part of standardized national science tests in European countries. This dimension consisted of three basic abilities: (i) to solve problems formulated in theoretical terms , (ii) to frame a problem in scientific terms , and (iii) to formulate scientific hypotheses . In contrast, critical thinking was not even mentioned in such a report. However, in subsequent similar reports by the European Commission/Eurydice ( 2011 , 2022 ), there are some references to the fact that the development of critical thinking should be a basic objective of science teaching, although these reports do not define it at any point.

The ENCIENDE report on early-year science education in Spain also includes an explicit allusion to critical thinking among its recommendations: “Providing students with learning tools means helping them to develop critical thinking , to form their own opinions, to distinguish between knowledge founded on the evidence available at a certain moment (evidence which can change) and unfounded beliefs” (Confederation of Scientific Societies in Spain (COSCE), 2011 , p. 62). However, the report makes no explicit mention to scientific thinking. More recently, the document “ Enseñando ciencia con ciencia ” (Teaching science with science) (Couso et al., 2020 ), sponsored by Spain’s Ministry of Education, also addresses critical thinking:

(…) with the teaching approach through guided inquiry students learn scientific content, learn to do science (procedures), learn what science is and how it is built, and this (...) helps to develop critical thinking , that is, to question any statement that is not supported by evidence. (Couso et al., 2020 , p. 54)

On the other hand, in referring to what is practically the same thing, the European report Science Education for Responsible Citizenship speaks of scientific thinking when it establishes that one of the challenges of scientific education should be: “To promote a culture of scientific thinking and inspire citizens to use evidence-based reasoning for decision making” (European Commission, 2015 , p. 14). However, the Pisa 2024 Strategic Vision and Direction for Science report does not mention scientific thinking but does mention critical thinking in noting that “More generally, (students) should be able to recognize the limitations of scientific inquiry and apply critical thinking when engaging with its results” (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2020 , p. 9).

The new Spanish science curriculum for basic education (Royal Decree 217/ 2022 ) does make explicit reference to scientific thinking. For example, one of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) competency descriptors for compulsory secondary education reads:

Use scientific thinking to understand and explain the phenomena that occur around them, trusting in knowledge as a motor for development, asking questions and checking hypotheses through experimentation and inquiry (...) showing a critical attitude about the scope and limitations of science. (p. 41,599)

Furthermore, when developing the curriculum for the subjects of physics and chemistry, the same provision clarifies that “The essence of scientific thinking is to understand what are the reasons for the phenomena that occur in the natural environment to then try to explain them through the appropriate laws of physics and chemistry” (Royal Decree 217/ 2022 , p. 41,659). However, within the science subjects (i.e., Biology and Geology, and Physics and Chemistry), critical thinking is not mentioned as such. Footnote 1 It is only more or less directly alluded to with such expressions as “critical analysis”, “critical assessment”, “critical reflection”, “critical attitude”, and “critical spirit”, with no attempt to conceptualize it as is done with regard to scientific thinking.

The above is just a small sample of the concepts of scientific thinking and critical thinking only being differentiated in some cases, while in others they are presented as interchangeable, using one or the other indistinctly to talk about the same cognitive/metacognitive processes or practices. In fairness, however, it has to be acknowledged—as said at the beginning—that it is far from easy to conceptualize these two types of thinking (Bailin, 2002 ; Dwyer et al., 2014 ; Ennis, 2018 ; Lehrer & Schauble, 2006 ; Kuhn, 1993 , 1999 ) since they feed back on each other, partially overlap, and share certain features (Cáceres et al., 2020 ; Vázquez-Alonso & Manassero-Mas, 2018 ). Neither is there unanimity in the literature on how to characterize each of them, and rarely have they been analyzed comparatively (e.g., Hyytinen et al., 2019 ). For these reasons, I believed it necessary to address this issue with the present work in order to offer some guidelines for science teachers interested in deepening into these two intellectual processes to promote them in their classes.

2 An Attempt to Delimit Scientific Thinking in Science Education

For many years, cognitive science has been interested in studying what scientific thinking is and how it can be taught in order to improve students’ science learning (Klarh et al., 2019 ; Zimmerman & Klarh, 2018 ). To this end, Kuhn et al. propose taking a characterization of science as argument (Kuhn, 1993 ; Kuhn et al., 2008 ). They argue that this is a suitable way of linking the activity of how scientists think with that of the students and of the public in general, since science is a social activity which is subject to ongoing debate, in which the construction of arguments plays a key role. Lehrer and Schauble ( 2006 ) link scientific thinking with scientific literacy, paying especial attention to the different images of science. According to those authors, these images would guide the development of the said literacy in class. The images of science that Leherer and Schauble highlight as characterizing scientific thinking are: (i) science-as-logical reasoning (role of domain-general forms of scientific reasoning, including formal logic, heuristic, and strategies applied in different fields of science), (ii) science-as-theory change (science is subject to permanent revision and change), and (iii) science-as-practice (scientific knowledge and reasoning are components of a larger set of activities that include rules of participation, procedural skills, epistemological knowledge, etc.).

Based on a literature review, Jirout ( 2020 ) defines scientific thinking as an intellectual process whose purpose is the intentional search for information about a phenomenon or facts by formulating questions, checking hypotheses, carrying out observations, recognizing patterns, and making inferences (a detailed description of all these scientific practices or competencies can be found, for example, in NRC, 2012 ; OECD, 2019 ). Therefore, for Jirout, the development of scientific thinking would involve bringing into play the basic science skills/practices common to the inquiry-based approach to learning science (García-Carmona, 2020 ; Harlen, 2014 ). For other authors, scientific thinking would include a whole spectrum of scientific reasoning competencies (Krell et al., 2022 ; Moore, 2019 ; Tytler & Peterson, 2004 ). However, these competences usually cover the same science skills/practices mentioned above. Indeed, a conceptual overlap between scientific thinking, scientific reasoning, and scientific inquiry is often found in science education goals (Krell et al., 2022 ). Although, according to Leherer and Schauble ( 2006 ), scientific thinking is a broader construct that encompasses the other two.

It could be said that scientific thinking is a particular way of searching for information using science practices Footnote 2 (Klarh et al., 2019 ; Zimmerman & Klarh, 2018 ; Vázquez-Alonso & Manassero-Mas, 2018 ). This intellectual process provides the individual with the ability to evaluate the robustness of evidence for or against a certain idea, in order to explain a phenomenon (Clouse, 2017 ). But the development of scientific thinking also requires metacognition processes. According to what Kuhn ( 2022 ) argues, metacognition is fundamental to the permanent control or revision of what an individual thinks and knows, as well as that of the other individuals with whom it interacts, when engaging in scientific practices. In short, scientific thinking demands a good connection between reasoning and metacognition (Kuhn, 2022 ). Footnote 3

From that perspective, Zimmerman and Klarh ( 2018 ) have synthesized a taxonomy categorizing scientific thinking, relating cognitive processes with the corresponding science practices (Table 1 ). It has to be noted that this taxonomy was prepared in line with the categorization of scientific practices proposed in the document A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012 ). This is why one needs to understand that, for example, the cognitive process of elaboration and refinement of hypotheses is not explicitly associated with the scientific practice of hypothesizing but only with the formulation of questions. Indeed, the K-12 Framework document does not establish hypothesis formulation as a basic scientific practice. Lederman et al. ( 2014 ) justify it by arguing that not all scientific research necessarily allows or requires the verification of hypotheses, for example, in cases of exploratory or descriptive research. However, the aforementioned document (NRC, 2012 , p. 50) does refer to hypotheses when describing the practice of developing and using models , appealing to the fact that they facilitate the testing of hypothetical explanations .

In the literature, there are also other interesting taxonomies characterizing scientific thinking for educational purposes. One of them is that of Vázquez-Alonso and Manassero-Mas ( 2018 ) who, instead of science practices, refer to skills associated with scientific thinking . Their characterization basically consists of breaking down into greater detail the content of those science practices that would be related to the different cognitive and metacognitive processes of scientific thinking. Also, unlike Zimmerman and Klarh’s ( 2018 ) proposal, Vázquez-Alonso and Manassero-Mas’s ( 2018 ) proposal explicitly mentions metacognition as one of the aspects of scientific thinking, which they call meta-process . In my opinion, the proposal of the latter authors, which shells out scientific thinking into a broader range of skills/practices, can be more conducive in order to favor its approach in science classes, as teachers would have more options to choose from to address components of this intellectual process depending on their teaching interests, the educational needs of their students and/or the learning objectives pursued. Table 2 presents an adapted characterization of the Vázquez-Alonso and Manassero-Mas’s ( 2018 ) proposal to address scientific thinking in science education.

3 Contextualization of Critical Thinking in Science Education

Theorization and research about critical thinking also has a long tradition in the field of the psychology of learning (Ennis, 2018 ; Kuhn, 1999 ), and its application extends far beyond science education (Dwyer et al., 2014 ). Indeed, the development of critical thinking is commonly accepted as being an essential goal of people’s overall education (Ennis, 2018 ; Hitchcock, 2017 ; Kuhn, 1999 ; Willingham, 2008 ). However, its conceptualization is not simple and there is no unanimous position taken on it in the literature (Costa et al., 2020 ; Dwyer et al., 2014 ); especially when trying to relate it to scientific thinking. Thus, while Tena-Sánchez and León-Medina ( 2022 ) Footnote 4 and McBain et al. ( 2020 ) consider critical thinking to be the basis of or forms part of scientific thinking, Dowd et al. ( 2018 ) understand scientific thinking to be just a subset of critical thinking. However, Vázquez-Alonso and Manassero-Mas ( 2018 ) do not seek to determine whether critical thinking encompasses scientific thinking or vice versa. They consider that both types of knowledge share numerous skills/practices and the progressive development of one fosters the development of the other as a virtuous circle of improvement. Other authors, such as Schafersman ( 1991 ), even go so far as to say that critical thinking and scientific thinking are the same thing. In addition, some views on the relationship between critical thinking and scientific thinking seem to be context-dependent. For example, Hyytine et al. ( 2019 ) point out that in the perspective of scientific thinking as a component of critical thinking, the former is often used to designate evidence-based thinking in the sciences, although this view tends to dominate in Europe but not in the USA context. Perhaps because of this lack of consensus, the two types of thinking are often confused, overlapping, or conceived as interchangeable in education.

Even with such a lack of unanimous or consensus vision, there are some interesting theoretical frameworks and definitions for the development of critical thinking in education. One of the most popular definitions of critical thinking is that proposed by The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (1987, cited in Inter-American Teacher Education Network, 2015 , p. 6). This conceives of it as “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action”. In other words, critical thinking can be regarded as a reflective and reasonable class of thinking that provides people with the ability to evaluate multiple statements or positions that are defensible to then decide which is the most defensible (Clouse, 2017 ; Ennis, 2018 ). It thus requires, in addition to a basic scientific competency, notions about epistemology (Kuhn, 1999 ) to understand how knowledge is constructed. Similarly, it requires skills for metacognition (Hyytine et al., 2019 ; Kuhn, 1999 ; Magno, 2010 ) since critical thinking “entails awareness of one’s own thinking and reflection on the thinking of self and others as objects of cognition” (Dean & Kuhn, 2003 , p. 3).

In science education, one of the most suitable scenarios or resources, but not the only one, Footnote 5 to address all these aspects of critical thinking is through the analysis of socioscientific issues (SSI) (Taylor et al., 2006 ; Zeidler & Nichols, 2009 ). Without wishing to expand on this here, I will only say that interesting works can be found in the literature that have analyzed how the discussion of SSIs can favor the development of critical thinking skills (see, e.g., López-Fernández et al., 2022 ; Solbes et al., 2018 ). For example, López-Fernández et al. ( 2022 ) focused their teaching-learning sequence on the following critical thinking skills: information analysis, argumentation, decision making, and communication of decisions. Even some authors add the nature of science (NOS) to this framework (i.e., SSI-NOS-critical thinking), as, for example, Yacoubian and Khishfe ( 2018 ) in order to develop critical thinking and how this can also favor the understanding of NOS (Yacoubian, 2020 ). In effect, as I argued in another work on the COVID-19 pandemic as an SSI, in which special emphasis was placed on critical thinking, an informed understanding of how science works would have helped the public understand why scientists were changing their criteria to face the pandemic in the light of new data and its reinterpretations, or that it was not possible to go faster to get an effective and secure medical treatment for the disease (García-Carmona, 2021b ).

In the recent literature, there have also been some proposals intended to characterize critical thinking in the context of science education. Table 3 presents two of these by way of example. As can be seen, both proposals share various components for the development of critical thinking (respect for evidence, critically analyzing/assessing the validity/reliability of information, adoption of independent opinions/decisions, participation, etc.), but that of Blanco et al. ( 2017 ) is more clearly contextualized in science education. Likewise, that of these authors includes some more aspects (or at least does so more explicitly), such as developing epistemological Footnote 6 knowledge of science (vision of science…) and on its interactions with technology, society, and environment (STSA relationships), and communication skills. Therefore, it offers a wider range of options for choosing critical thinking skills/processes to promote it in science classes. However, neither proposal refers to metacognitive skills, which are also essential for developing critical thinking (Kuhn, 1999 ).

3.1 Critical thinking vs. scientific thinking in science education: differences and similarities

In accordance with the above, it could be said that scientific thinking is nourished by critical thinking, especially when deciding between several possible interpretations and explanations of the same phenomenon since this generally takes place in a context of debate in the scientific community (Acevedo-Díaz & García-Carmona, 2017 ). Thus, the scientific attitude that is perhaps most clearly linked to critical thinking is the skepticism with which scientists tend to welcome new ideas (Normand, 2008 ; Sagan, 1987 ; Tena-Sánchez and León-Medina, 2022 ), especially if they are contrary to well-established scientific knowledge (Bell, 2009 ). A good example of this was the OPERA experiment (García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2016a ), which initially seemed to find that neutrinos could move faster than the speed of light. This finding was supposed to invalidate Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity (the finding was later proved wrong). In response, Nobel laureate in physics Sheldon L. Glashow went so far as to state that:

the result obtained by the OPERA collaboration cannot be correct. If it were, we would have to give up so many things, it would be such a huge sacrifice... But if it is, I am officially announcing it: I will shout to Mother Nature: I’m giving up! And I will give up Physics. (BBVA Foundation, 2011 )

Indeed, scientific thinking is ultimately focused on getting evidence that may support an idea or explanation about a phenomenon, and consequently allow others that are less convincing or precise to be discarded. Therefore when, with the evidence available, science has more than one equally defensible position with respect to a problem, the investigation is considered inconclusive (Clouse, 2017 ). In certain cases, this gives rise to scientific controversies (Acevedo-Díaz & García-Carmona, 2017 ) which are not always resolved based exclusively on epistemic or rational factors (Elliott & McKaughan, 2014 ; Vallverdú, 2005 ). Hence, it is also necessary to integrate non-epistemic practices into the framework of scientific thinking (García-Carmona, 2021a ; García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2018 ), practices that transcend the purely rational or cognitive processes, including, for example, those related to emotional or affective issues (Sinatra & Hofer, 2021 ). From an educational point of view, this suggests that for students to become more authentically immersed in the way of working or thinking scientifically, they should also learn to feel as scientists do when they carry out their work (Davidson et al., 2020 ). Davidson et al. ( 2020 ) call it epistemic affect , and they suggest that it could be approach in science classes by teaching students to manage their frustrations when they fail to achieve the expected results; Footnote 7 or, for example, to moderate their enthusiasm with favorable results in a scientific inquiry by activating a certain skepticism that encourages them to do more testing. And, as mentioned above, for some authors, having a skeptical attitude is one of the actions that best visualize the application of critical thinking in the framework of scientific thinking (Normand, 2008 ; Sagan, 1987 ; Tena-Sánchez and León-Medina, 2022 ).

On the other hand, critical thinking also draws on many of the skills or practices of scientific thinking, as discussed above. However, in contrast to scientific thinking, the coexistence of two or more defensible ideas is not, in principle, a problem for critical thinking since its purpose is not so much to invalidate some ideas or explanations with respect to others, but rather to provide the individual with the foundations on which to position themself with the idea/argument they find most defensible among several that are possible (Ennis, 2018 ). For example, science with its methods has managed to explain the greenhouse effect, the phenomenon of the tides, or the transmission mechanism of the coronavirus. For this, it had to discard other possible explanations as they were less valid in the investigations carried out. These are therefore issues resolved by the scientific community which create hardly any discussion at the present time. However, taking a position for or against the production of energy in nuclear power plants transcends the scope of scientific thinking since both positions are, in principle, equally defensible. Indeed, within the scientific community itself there are supporters and detractors of the two positions, based on the same scientific knowledge. Consequently, it is critical thinking, which requires the management of knowledge and scientific skills, a basic understanding of epistemic (rational or cognitive) and non-epistemic (social, ethical/moral, economic, psychological, cultural, ...) aspects of the nature of science, as well as metacognitive skills, which helps the individual forge a personal foundation on which to position themself in one place or another, or maintain an uncertain, undecided opinion.

In view of the above, one can summarize that scientific thinking and critical thinking are two different intellectual processes in terms of purpose, but are related symbiotically (i.e., one would make no sense without the other or both feed on each other) and that, in their performance, they share a fair number of features, actions, or mental skills. According to Cáceres et al. ( 2020 ) and Hyytine et al. ( 2019 ), the intellectual skills that are most clearly common to both types of thinking would be searching for relationships between evidence and explanations , as well as investigating and logical thinking to make inferences . To this common space, I would also add skills for metacognition in accordance with what has been discussed about both types of knowledge (Khun, 1999 , 2022 ).

In order to compile in a compact way all that has been argued so far, in Table 4 , I present my overview of the relationship between scientific thinking and critical thinking. I would like to point out that I do not intend to be extremely extensive in the compilation, in the sense that possibly more elements could be added in the different sections, but rather to represent above all the aspects that distinguish and share them, as well as the mutual enrichment (or symbiosis) between them.

4 A Proposal for the Integrated Development of Critical Thinking and Scientific Thinking in Science Classes

Once the differences, common aspects, and relationships between critical thinking and scientific thinking have been discussed, it would be relevant to establish some type of specific proposal to foster them in science classes. Table 5 includes a possible script to address various skills or processes of both types of thinking in an integrated manner. However, before giving guidance on how such skills/processes could be approached, I would like to clarify that while all of them could be dealt within the context of a single school activity, I will not do so in this way. First, because I think that it can give the impression that the proposal is only valid if it is applied all at once in a specific learning situation, which can also discourage science teachers from implementing it in class due to lack of time or training to do so. Second, I think it can be more interesting to conceive the proposal as a set of thinking skills or actions that can be dealt with throughout the different science contents, selecting only (if so decided) some of them, according to educational needs or characteristics of the learning situation posed in each case. Therefore, in the orientations for each point of the script or grouping of these, I will use different examples and/or contexts. Likewise, these orientations in the form of comments, although founded in the literature, should be considered only as possibilities to do so, among many others possible.

Motivation and predisposition to reflect and discuss (point i ) demands, on the one hand, that issues are chosen which are attractive for the students. This can be achieved, for example, by asking the students directly what current issues, related to science and its impact or repercussions, they would like to learn about, and then decide on which issue to focus on (García-Carmona, 2008 ). Or the teacher puts forward the issue directly in class, trying for it be current, to be present in the media, social networks, etc., or what they think may be of interest to their students based on their teaching experience. In this way, each student is encouraged to feel questioned or concerned as a citizen because of the issue that is going to be addressed (García-Carmona, 2008 ). Also of possible interest is the analysis of contemporary, as yet unresolved socioscientific affairs (Solbes et al., 2018 ), such as climate change, science and social justice, transgenic foods, homeopathy, and alcohol and drug use in society. But also, everyday questions can be investigated which demand a decision to be made, such as “What car to buy?” (Moreno-Fontiveros et al., 2022 ), or “How can we prevent the arrival of another pandemic?” (Ushola & Puig, 2023 ).

On the other hand, it is essential that the discussion about the chosen issue is planned through an instructional process that generates an environment conducive to reflection and debate, with a view to engaging the students’ participation in it. This can be achieved, for example, by setting up a role-play game (Blanco-López et al., 2017 ), especially if the issue is socioscientific, or by critical and reflective reading of advertisements with scientific content (Campanario et al., 2001 ) or of science-related news in the daily media (García-Carmona, 2014 , 2021a ; Guerrero-Márquez & García-Carmona, 2020 ; Oliveras et al., 2013 ), etc., for subsequent discussion—all this, in a collaborative learning setting and with a clear democratic spirit.

Respect for scientific evidence (point ii ) should be the indispensable condition in any analysis and discussion from the prisms of scientific and of critical thinking (Erduran, 2021 ). Although scientific knowledge may be impregnated with subjectivity during its construction and is revisable in the light of new evidence ( tentativeness of scientific knowledge), when it is accepted by the scientific community it is as objective as possible (García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2016b ). Therefore, promoting trust and respect for scientific evidence should be one of the primary educational challenges to combating pseudoscientists and science deniers (Díaz & Cabrera, 2022 ), whose arguments are based on false beliefs and assumptions, anecdotes, and conspiracy theories (Normand, 2008 ). Nevertheless, it is no simple task to achieve the promotion or respect for scientific evidence (Fackler, 2021 ) since science deniers, for example, consider that science is unreliable because it is imperfect (McIntyre, 2021 ). Hence the need to promote a basic understanding of NOS (point iii ) as a fundamental pillar for the development of both scientific thinking and critical thinking. A good way to do this would be through explicit and reflective discussion about controversies from the history of science (Acevedo-Díaz & García-Carmona, 2017 ) or contemporary controversies (García-Carmona, 2021b ; García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2016a ).

Also, with respect to point iii of the proposal, it is necessary to manage basic scientific knowledge in the development of scientific and critical thinking skills (Willingham, 2008 ). Without this, it will be impossible to develop a minimally serious and convincing argument on the issue being analyzed. For example, if one does not know the transmission mechanism of a certain disease, it is likely to be very difficult to understand or justify certain patterns of social behavior when faced with it. In general, possessing appropriate scientific knowledge on the issue in question helps to make the best interpretation of the data and evidence available on this issue (OECD, 2019 ).

The search for information from reliable sources, together with its analysis and interpretation (points iv to vi ), are essential practices both in purely scientific contexts (e.g., learning about the behavior of a given physical phenomenon from literature or through enquiry) and in the application of critical thinking (e.g., when one wishes to take a personal, but informed, position on a particular socio-scientific issue). With regard to determining the credibility of information with scientific content on the Internet, Osborne et al. ( 2022 ) propose, among other strategies, to check whether the source is free of conflicts of interest, i.e., whether or not it is biased by ideological, political or economic motives. Also, it should be checked whether the source and the author(s) of the information are sufficiently reputable.

Regarding the interpretation of data and evidence, several studies have shown the difficulties that students often have with this practice in the context of enquiry activities (e.g., Gobert et al., 2018 ; Kanari & Millar, 2004 ; Pols et al., 2021 ), or when analyzing science news in the press (Norris et al., 2003 ). It is also found that they have significant difficulties in choosing the most appropriate data to support their arguments in causal analyses (Kuhn & Modrek, 2022 ). However, it must be recognized that making interpretations or inferences from data is not a simple task; among other reasons, because their construction is influenced by multiple factors, both epistemic (prior knowledge, experimental designs, etc.) and non-epistemic (personal expectations, ideology, sociopolitical context, etc.), which means that such interpretations are not always the same for all scientists (García-Carmona, 2021a ; García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2018 ). For this reason, the performance of this scientific practice constitutes one of the phases or processes that generate the most debate or discussion in a scientific community, as long as no consensus is reached. In order to improve the practice of making inferences among students, Kuhn and Lerman ( 2021 ) propose activities that help them develop their own epistemological norms to connect causally their statements with the available evidence.

Point vii refers, on the one hand, to an essential scientific practice: the elaboration of evidence-based scientific explanations which generally, in a reasoned way, account for the causality, properties, and/or behavior of the phenomena (Brigandt, 2016 ). In addition, point vii concerns the practice of argumentation . Unlike scientific explanations, argumentation tries to justify an idea, explanation, or position with the clear purpose of persuading those who defend other different ones (Osborne & Patterson, 2011 ). As noted above, the complexity of most socioscientific issues implies that they have no unique valid solution or response. Therefore, the content of the arguments used to defend one position or another are not always based solely on purely rational factors such as data and scientific evidence. Some authors defend the need to also deal with non-epistemic aspects of the nature of science when teaching it (García-Carmona, 2021a ; García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2018 ) since many scientific and socioscientific controversies are resolved by different factors or go beyond just the epistemic (Vallverdú, 2005 ).

To defend an idea or position taken on an issue, it is not enough to have scientific evidence that supports it. It is also essential to have skills for the communication and discussion of ideas (point viii ). The history of science shows how the difficulties some scientists had in communicating their ideas scientifically led to those ideas not being accepted at the time. A good example for students to become aware of this is the historical case of Semmelweis and puerperal fever (Aragón-Méndez et al., 2019 ). Its reflective reading makes it possible to conclude that the proposal of this doctor that gynecologists disinfect their hands, when passing from one parturient to another to avoid contagions that provoked the fever, was rejected by the medical community not only for epistemic reasons, but also for the difficulties that he had to communicate his idea. The history of science also reveals that some scientific interpretations were imposed on others at certain historical moments due to the rhetorical skills of their proponents although none of the explanations would convincingly explain the phenomenon studied. An example is the case of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig about the phenomenon of fermentation (García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2017 ), whose reading and discussion in science class would also be recommended in this context of this critical and scientific thinking skill. With the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the arguments of some charlatans in the media and on social networks managed to gain a certain influence in the population, even though scientifically they were muddled nonsense (García-Carmona, 2021b ). Therefore, the reflective reading of news on current SSIs such as this also constitutes a good resource for the same educational purpose. In general, according to Spektor-Levy et al. ( 2009 ), scientific communication skills should be addressed explicitly in class, in a progressive and continuous manner, including tasks of information seeking, reading, scientific writing, representation of information, and representation of the knowledge acquired.

Finally (point ix ), a good scientific/critical thinker must be aware of what they know, of what they have doubts about or do not know, to this end continuously practicing metacognitive exercises (Dean & Kuhn, 2003 ; Hyytine et al., 2019 ; Magno, 2010 ; Willingham, 2008 ). At the same time, they must recognize the weaknesses and strengths of the arguments of their peers in the debate in order to be self-critical if necessary, as well as to revising their own ideas and arguments to improve and reorient them, etc. ( self-regulation ). I see one of the keys of both scientific and critical thinking being the capacity or willingness to change one’s mind, without it being frowned upon. Indeed, quite the opposite since one assumes it to occur thanks to the arguments being enriched and more solidly founded. In other words, scientific and critical thinking and arrogance or haughtiness towards the rectification of ideas or opinions do not stick well together.

5 Final Remarks

For decades, scientific thinking and critical thinking have received particular attention from different disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, pedagogy, and specific areas of this last such as science education. The two types of knowledge represent intellectual processes whose development in students, and in society in general, is considered indispensable for the exercise of responsible citizenship in accord with the demands of today’s society (European Commission, 2006 , 2015 ; NRC, 2012 ; OECD, 2020 ). As has been shown however, the task of their conceptualization is complex, and teaching students to think scientifically and critically is a difficult educational challenge (Willingham, 2008 ).

Aware of this, and after many years dedicated to science education, I felt the need to organize my ideas regarding the aforementioned two types of thinking. In consulting the literature about these, I found that, in many publications, scientific thinking and critical thinking are presented or perceived as being interchangeable or indistinguishable; a conclusion also shared by Hyytine et al. ( 2019 ). Rarely have their differences, relationships, or common features been explicitly studied. So, I considered that it was a matter needing to be addressed because, in science education, the development of scientific thinking is an inherent objective, but, when critical thinking is added to the learning objectives, there arise more than reasonable doubts about when one or the other would be used, or both at the same time. The present work came about motivated by this, with the intention of making a particular contribution, but based on the relevant literature, to advance in the question raised. This converges in conceiving scientific thinking and critical thinking as two intellectual processes that overlap and feed into each other in many aspects but are different with respect to certain cognitive skills and in terms of their purpose. Thus, in the case of scientific thinking, the aim is to choose the best possible explanation of a phenomenon based on the available evidence, and it therefore involves the rejection of alternative explanatory proposals that are shown to be less coherent or convincing. Whereas, from the perspective of critical thinking, the purpose is to choose the most defensible idea/option among others that are also defensible, using both scientific and extra-scientific (i.e., moral, ethical, political, etc.) arguments. With this in mind, I have described a proposal to guide their development in the classroom, integrating them under a conception that I have called, metaphorically, a symbiotic relationship between two modes of thinking.

Critical thinking is mentioned literally in other of the curricular provisions’ subjects such as in Education in Civics and Ethical Values or in Geography and History (Royal Decree 217/2022).

García-Carmona ( 2021a ) conceives of them as activities that require the comprehensive application of procedural skills, cognitive and metacognitive processes, and both scientific knowledge and knowledge of the nature of scientific practice .

Kuhn ( 2021 ) argues that the relationship between scientific reasoning and metacognition is especially fostered by what she calls inhibitory control , which basically consists of breaking down the whole of a thought into parts in such a way that attention is inhibited on some of those parts to allow a focused examination of the intended mental content.

Specifically, Tena-Sánchez and León-Medina (2020) assume that critical thinking is at the basis of rational or scientific skepticism that leads to questioning any claim that does not have empirical support.

As discussed in the introduction, the inquiry-based approach is also considered conducive to addressing critical thinking in science education (Couso et al., 2020 ; NRC, 2012 ).

Epistemic skills should not be confused with epistemological knowledge (García-Carmona, 2021a ). The former refers to skills to construct, evaluate, and use knowledge, and the latter to understanding about the origin, nature, scope, and limits of scientific knowledge.

For this purpose, it can be very useful to address in class, with the help of the history and philosophy of science, that scientists get more wrong than right in their research, and that error is always an opportunity to learn (García-Carmona & Acevedo-Díaz, 2018 ).

Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2017). Controversias en la historia de la ciencia y cultura científica [Controversies in the history of science and scientific culture]. Los Libros de la Catarata.

Aragón-Méndez, M. D. M., Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2019). Prospective biology teachers’ understanding of the nature of science through an analysis of the historical case of Semmelweis and childbed fever. Cultural Studies of Science Education , 14 (3), 525–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9868-y

Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11 (4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016042608621

Article   Google Scholar  

BBVA Foundation (2011). El Nobel de Física Sheldon L. Glashow no cree que los neutrinos viajen más rápido que la luz [Physics Nobel laureate Sheldon L. Glashow does not believe neutrinos travel faster than light.]. https://www.fbbva.es/noticias/nobel-fisica-sheldon-l-glashow-no-cree-los-neutrinos-viajen-mas-rapido-la-luz/ . Accessed 5 Februray 2023.

Bell, R. L. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. In Best Practices in Science Education . National Geographic School Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Blanco-López, A., España-Ramos, E., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2017). Estrategias didácticas para el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en el aula de ciencias [Teaching strategies for the development of critical thinking in the teaching of science]. Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, 1 (1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.17979/arec.2017.1.1.2004

Brigandt, I. (2016). Why the difference between explanation and argument matters to science education. Science & Education, 25 (3-4), 251–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9826-6

Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M., & Ortiz, J. (2020). Integrating critical thinking into the classroom: A teacher’s perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37 , 100674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100674

Campanario, J. M., Moya, A., & Otero, J. (2001). Invocaciones y usos inadecuados de la ciencia en la publicidad [Invocations and misuses of science in advertising]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 19 (1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.4013

Clouse, S. (2017). Scientific thinking is not critical thinking. https://medium.com/extra-extra/scientific-thinking-is-not-critical-thinking-b1ea9ebd8b31

Confederacion de Sociedades Cientificas de Espana [COSCE]. (2011). Informe ENCIENDE: Enseñanza de las ciencias en la didáctica escolar para edades tempranas en España [ENCIENDE report: Science education for early-year in Spain] . COSCE.

Costa, S. L. R., Obara, C. E., & Broietti, F. C. D. (2020). Critical thinking in science education publications: the research contexts. International Journal of Development Research, 10 (8), 39438. https://doi.org/10.37118/ijdr.19437.08.2020

Couso, D., Jiménez-Liso, M.R., Refojo, C. & Sacristán, J.A. (coords.) (2020). Enseñando ciencia con ciencia [Teaching science with science]. FECYT & Fundacion Lilly / Penguin Random House

Davidson, S. G., Jaber, L. Z., & Southerland, S. A. (2020). Emotions in the doing of science: Exploring epistemic affect in elementary teachers' science research experiences. Science Education, 104 (6), 1008–1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21596

Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2003). Metacognition and critical thinking. ERIC document. Reproduction No. ED477930 . https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477930.pdf

Díaz, C., & Cabrera, C. (2022). Desinformación científica en España . FECYT/IBERIFIER https://www.fecyt.es/es/publicacion/desinformacion-cientifica-en-espana

Dowd, J. E., Thompson, R. J., Jr., Schiff, L. A., & Reynolds, J. A. (2018). Understanding the complex relationship between critical thinking and science reasoning among undergraduate thesis writers. CBE—Life Sciences . Education, 17 (1), ar4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12 , 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004

Elliott, K. C., & McKaughan, D. J. (2014). Non-epistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philosophy of Science, 81 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/674345

Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37 (1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

Erduran, S. (2021). Respect for evidence: Can science education deliver it? Science & Education, 30 (3), 441–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00245-8

European Commission. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship . Publications Office https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a1d14fa0-8dbe-11e5-b8b7-01aa75ed71a1

European Commission / Eurydice. (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research . Publications Office. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bae53054-c26c-4c9f-8366-5f95e2187634

European Commission / Eurydice. (2022). Increasing achievement and motivation in mathematics and science learning in schools . Publications Office. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/mathematics-and-science-learning-schools-2022

European Commission/Eurydice. (2006). Science teaching in schools in Europe. Policies and research . Publications Office. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1dc3df34-acdf-479e-bbbf-c404fa3bee8b

Fackler, A. (2021). When science denial meets epistemic understanding. Science & Education, 30 (3), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00198-y

García-Carmona, A. (2008). Relaciones CTS en la educación científica básica. II. Investigando los problemas del mundo [STS relationships in basic science education II. Researching the world problems]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 26 (3), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3750

García-Carmona, A. (2014). Naturaleza de la ciencia en noticias científicas de la prensa: Análisis del contenido y potencialidades didácticas [Nature of science in press articles about science: Content analysis and pedagogical potential]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32 (3), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1307

García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2016). Learning about the nature of science using newspaper articles with scientific content. Science & Education, 25 (5–6), 523–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9831-9

García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2016b). Concepciones de estudiantes de profesorado de Educación Primaria sobre la naturaleza de la ciencia: Una evaluación diagnóstica a partir de reflexiones en equipo [Preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: a diagnostic evaluation based on team reflections]. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 21 (69), 583–610. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=14045395010

García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science & Education, 26 (1–2), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9876-4

García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2018). The nature of scientific practice and science education. Science & Education, 27 (5–6), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9984-9

García-Carmona, A. (2020). From inquiry-based science education to the approach based on scientific practices. Science & Education, 29 (2), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00108-8

García-Carmona, A. (2021a). Prácticas no-epistémicas: ampliando la mirada en el enfoque didáctico basado en prácticas científicas [Non-epistemic practices: extending the view in the didactic approach based on scientific practices]. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 18 (1), 1108. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2021.v18.i1.1108

García-Carmona, A. (2021b). Learning about the nature of science through the critical and reflective reading of news on the COVID-19 pandemic. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16 (4), 1015–1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-021-10092-2

Guerrero-Márquez, I., & García-Carmona, A. (2020). La energía y su impacto socioambiental en la prensa digital: temáticas y potencialidades didácticas para una educación CTS [Energy and its socio-environmental impact in the digital press: issues and didactic potentialities for STS education]. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 17(3), 3301. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2020.v17.i3.3301

Gobert, J. D., Moussavi, R., Li, H., Sao Pedro, M., & Dickler, R. (2018). Real-time scaffolding of students’ online data interpretation during inquiry with Inq-ITS using educational data mining. In M. E. Auer, A. K. M. Azad, A. Edwards, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Cyber-physical laboratories in engineering and science education (pp. 191–217). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Harlen, W. (2014). Helping children’s development of inquiry skills. Inquiry in Primary Science Education, 1 (1), 5–19. https://ipsejournal.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/3-ipse-volume-1-no-1-wynne-harlen-p-5-19.pdf

Hitchcock, D. (2017). Critical thinking as an educational ideal. In On reasoning and argument (pp. 477–497). Springer.

Hyytinen, H., Toom, A., & Shavelson, R. J. (2019). Enhancing scientific thinking through the development of critical thinking in higher education. In M. Murtonen & K. Balloo (Eds.), Redefining scientific thinking for higher education . Palgrave Macmillan.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2022). Educating critical citizens to face post-truth: the time is now. In B. Puig & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Critical thinking in biology and environmental education, Contributions from biology education research (pp. 3–19). Springer.

Jirout, J. J. (2020). Supporting early scientific thinking through curiosity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 1717. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01717

Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (7), 748–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20020

Klahr, D., Zimmerman, C., & Matlen, B. J. (2019). Improving students’ scientific thinking. In J. Dunlosky & K. A. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 67–99). Cambridge University Press.

Krell, M., Vorholzer, A., & Nehring, A. (2022). Scientific reasoning in science education: from global measures to fine-grained descriptions of students’ competencies. Education Sciences, 12 , 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020097

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science education, 77 (3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 (2), 16–46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028002016

Kuhn, D. (2022). Metacognition matters in many ways. Educational Psychologist, 57 (2), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1988603

Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23 (4), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006

Kuhn, D., & Lerman, D. (2021). Yes but: Developing a critical stance toward evidence. International Journal of Science Education, 43 (7), 1036–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1897897

Kuhn, D., & Modrek, A. S. (2022). Choose your evidence: Scientific thinking where it may most count. Science & Education, 31 (1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00209-y

Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51 (1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In K. A. Renninger, I. E. Sigel, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Child psychology in practice (pp. 153–196). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

López-Fernández, M. D. M., González-García, F., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2022). How can socio-scientific issues help develop critical thinking in chemistry education? A reflection on the problem of plastics. Journal of Chemical Education, 99 (10), 3435–3442. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00223

Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5 , 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4

McBain, B., Yardy, A., Martin, F., Phelan, L., van Altena, I., McKeowen, J., Pembertond, C., Tosec, H., Fratuse, L., & Bowyer, M. (2020). Teaching science students how to think. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 28 (2), 28–35. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/CAL/article/view/14809/13480

McIntyre, L. (2021). Talking to science deniers and sceptics is not hopeless. Nature, 596 (7871), 165–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02152-y

Moore, C. (2019). Teaching science thinking. Using scientific reasoning in the classroom . Routledge.

Moreno-Fontiveros, G., Cebrián-Robles, D., Blanco-López, A., & y España-Ramos, E. (2022). Decisiones de estudiantes de 14/15 años en una propuesta didáctica sobre la compra de un coche [Fourteen/fifteen-year-old students’ decisions in a teaching proposal on the buying of a car]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 40 (1), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3292

National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education . National Academies Press.

Network, I.-A. T. E. (2015). Critical thinking toolkit . OAS/ITEN.

Normand, M. P. (2008). Science, skepticism, and applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1 (2), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391727

Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students’ interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12 (2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122001

Oliveras, B., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2013). The use of newspaper articles as a tool to develop critical thinking in science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 35 (6), 885–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.586736

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). PISA 2018. Assessment and Analytical Framework . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en

Book   Google Scholar  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2020). PISA 2024: Strategic Vision and Direction for Science. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2024-Science-Strategic-Vision-Proposal.pdf

Osborne, J., Pimentel, D., Alberts, B., Allchin, D., Barzilai, S., Bergstrom, C., Coffey, J., Donovan, B., Kivinen, K., Kozyreva, A., & Wineburg, S. (2022). Science Education in an Age of Misinformation . Stanford University.

Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95 (4), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438

Pols, C. F. J., Dekkers, P. J. J. M., & De Vries, M. J. (2021). What do they know? Investigating students’ ability to analyse experimental data in secondary physics education. International Journal of Science Education, 43 (2), 274–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1865588

Royal Decree 217/2022. (2022). of 29 March, which establishes the organisation and minimum teaching of Compulsory Secondary Education (Vol. 76 , pp. 41571–41789). Spanish Official State Gazette. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/2022/03/29/217

Sagan, C. (1987). The burden of skepticism. Skeptical Inquirer, 12 (1), 38–46. https://skepticalinquirer.org/1987/10/the-burden-of-skepticism/

Santos, L. F. (2017). The role of critical thinking in science education. Journal of Education and Practice, 8 (20), 160–173. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED575667

Schafersman, S. D. (1991). An introduction to critical thinking. https://facultycenter.ischool.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Critical-Thinking.pdf . Accessed 10 May 2023.

Sinatra, G. M., & Hofer, B. K. (2021). How do emotions and attitudes influence science understanding? In Science denial: why it happens and what to do about it (pp. 142–180). Oxford Academic.

Solbes, J., Torres, N., & Traver, M. (2018). Use of socio-scientific issues in order to improve critical thinking competences. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 19 (1), 1–22. https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/

Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B. S., & Scherz, Z. (2009). Teaching scientific communication skills in science studies: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7 (5), 875–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9150-6

Taylor, P., Lee, S. H., & Tal, T. (2006). Toward socio-scientific participation: changing culture in the science classroom and much more: Setting the stage. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1 (4), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9028-7

Tena-Sánchez, J., & León-Medina, F. J. (2022). Y aún más al fondo del “bullshit”: El papel de la falsificación de preferencias en la difusión del oscurantismo en la teoría social y en la sociedad [And even deeper into “bullshit”: The role of preference falsification in the difussion of obscurantism in social theory and in society]. Scio, 22 , 209–233. https://doi.org/10.46583/scio_2022.22.949

Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2004). From “try it and see” to strategic exploration: Characterizing young children's scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (1), 94–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10126

Uskola, A., & Puig, B. (2023). Development of systems and futures thinking skills by primary pre-service teachers for addressing epidemics. Research in Science Education , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10097-7

Vallverdú, J. (2005). ¿Cómo finalizan las controversias? Un nuevo modelo de análisis: la controvertida historia de la sacarina [How does controversies finish? A new model of analysis: the controversial history of saccharin]. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 2 (5), 19–50. http://www.revistacts.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/vol2-nro5-art01.pdf

Vázquez-Alonso, A., & Manassero-Mas, M. A. (2018). Más allá de la comprensión científica: educación científica para desarrollar el pensamiento [Beyond understanding of science: science education for teaching fair thinking]. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17 (2), 309–336. http://reec.uvigo.es/volumenes/volumen17/REEC_17_2_02_ex1065.pdf

Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109 (4), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32

Yacoubian, H. A. (2020). Teaching nature of science through a critical thinking approach. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of Science in Science Instruction (pp. 199–212). Springer.

Yacoubian, H. A., & Khishfe, R. (2018). Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science and socioscientific issues: a dialogue between two researchers. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (7), 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1449986

Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of elementary science education, 21 (2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684

Zimmerman, C., & Klahr, D. (2018). Development of scientific thinking. In J. T. Wixted (Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (Vol. 4 , pp. 1–25). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Download references

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Sevilla/CBUA

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain

Antonio García-Carmona

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio García-Carmona .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

García-Carmona, A. Scientific Thinking and Critical Thinking in Science Education . Sci & Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00460-5

Download citation

Accepted : 30 July 2023

Published : 05 September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00460-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cognitive skills
• Critical thinking
• Metacognitive skills
• Science education
• Scientific thinking
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research