Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2002 (°
C 2002)
Networking for Leadership, Inquiry, and Systemic Thinking:
A New Approach to Inquiry-Based Learning
Al Byers1,3 and Mary Ann Fitzgerald2
Recent changes in science education standards have mandated a prominent place for inquiry
learning in science curricula. However, change from traditional teaching methods to a more
inquiry-centered approach is difficult to enact. While research to date demonstrates a number
of successful inquiry implementations, it also reveals a slow rate of change along with possible
reasons for difficulty in adopting inquiry instructional methods. Further, inquiry reforms have
failed in the past. The Networking for Leadership, Inquiry, and Systemic Thinking (NLIST)
initiative, sponsored by the Council of State Science Supervisors and NASA, proposes to
facilitate inquiry through systemic reform designed to avoid the mistakes of the past and in-
corporate new knowledge about teaching and learning. Systemic elements targeted for change
include a standard conceptualization of science as inquiry, instructional materials, professional
development, administrative support and leadership, facilities, community involvement, and
technology infrastructure. To date, the initiative has created a detailed definition of inquiry
learning and a rubric for evaluating instructional materials against this definition. This pa-
per presents the theoretical and empirical foundations for the NLIST initiative, describes its
progress, and outlines future goals.
KEY WORDS: inquiry; science education; systemic change.
INTRODUCTION A prominent feature of these new Standards is
inquiry. The NSES contain substantial inquiry compo-
Over the past 8 years, the science education nents, asserting that students acquire the abilities to
profession has achieved two important milestones: conduct scientific investigations and understand how
the Project 2061 Benchmarks for Science Literacy inquiry works. They also set forth standards for teach-
(American Academy for the Advancement of Sci- ing scientific inquiry. According to NSES,
ence [AAAS], 1993) and the National Science Edu-
Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which
cation Standards (National Research Council [NRC], scientists study the natural world and propose ex-
1996). With the advent of these documents, arguments planations based on the evidence derived from their
over what science content students should learn have work. Inquiry also refers to the activities of students
subsided. Additionally, 49 states now have adopted in which they develop knowledge and understanding
their own science education content standards, de- of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how
scientists study the natural world. (NRC, 2000, p. 1)
rived from the Benchmarks and the National Science
Education Standards (NSES). This definition, along with the standardized expec-
tation that inquiry must occur in classrooms, pro-
vides an important impetus for the reformation of
1 Department of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Polytechnic Uni- science education. In an effort to increase under-
versity, Blacksburg, Virginia.
2 Department of Instructional Technology, University of Georgia,
standing of inquiry, the NRC produced Inquiry and
Athens, Georgia. the National Science Education Standards (NRC,
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at 2812 Wellsley 2000), popularly known as the “Addendum.” How-
Ct., Blacksburg, Virginia 24060; e-mail: ever, lasting and pervasive reform requires more than
81
1059-0145/02/0300-0081/0 °
C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
, 82 Byers and Fitzgerald
standards, definitions, and guidelines alone. The def- understanding limits the application and transfer of
inition presented above needs elaboration. Although knowledge to new and unique situations. Many schol-
the Addendum provides exciting examples of class- ars agree that while relevant prior knowledge is a pre-
room inquiry, reproducing these results in typical sci- requisite for construct development, content knowl-
ence classrooms under prevailing conditions is dif- edge alone does little to advance the habits of mind
ficult. A teacher motivated to use inquiry learning and comprehension of the scientific process that we
is faced with a number of questions: How might an wish to develop in our students (NRC, 2000). At least
educator identify instructional materials that support since the days of John Dewey, inquiry learning has
inquiry? What strategies make inquiry learning man- been suggested as a solution to this problem.
ageable and productive? On a broader scale, what At its core, inquiry embodies the scientific
components of the educational system need revision method. Students participate in experiments and
from an inquiry perspective if it is going to improve? investigations that require them to develop ques-
A new initiative called NLIST4 (Networking for tions and hypotheses, collect data, analyze data, and
Leadership, Inquiry, and Systemic Thinking) has been draw and test conclusions. Inquiry learning typically
launched to facilitate the implementation of inquiry at seeks to excite curiosity in students, encouraging them
the classroom level. Sponsored jointly by the Council to investigate questions on their own initiative and
of State Science Supervisors (CSSS) and the National grounding this activity in authentic situations. In ad-
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the dition to the basic abilities of conducting a scientific
NLIST vision has initiated creative and collabora- investigation, inquiry learning should include an un-
tive networking processes to encourage more effec- derstanding of how scientists do their work (NRC,
tive science education program implementation. The 2000). As part of these two key elements, science in-
purpose of the NLIST initiative is to describe the ways quiry should engage students in the overall evaluation
in which key system elements need to change so as to of existing and evolving scientific knowledge.
implement science as inquiry. In this paper, we seek Working from this basic and traditional under-
to begin a dialog regarding important questions ad- standing of the nature of scientific inquiry, substantial
dressed by NLIST. To do so, we will first explore some research supports the efficacy of inquiry as an instruc-
of the research supporting inquiry as an instructional tional model. The Addendum presents some of these
model, followed by some possible explanations of why research findings, drawing heavily upon Bransford
it has failed as a reform effort in the past. We then et al.’s report called How People Learn (Bransford
examine theoretical and empirical underpinnings of et al., 2000). This comprehensive report provides not
systemic change theory, synthesizing them with a de- only key research findings regarding inquiry, but also
scription of how NLIST expects to apply them to enact explanations for why inquiry has enjoyed success as
these changes. an instructional method
• Understanding science involves more than ob-
THE VALUE OF INQUIRY IN SCIENCE taining a knowledge base alone, including com-
EDUCATION prehending what these ideas mean, application
of these ideas, and strategies for scientific
Few professionals in the science education thinking and problem solving
community today believe that science education • Students build scientific understanding (as well
should exclusively involve rote fact recitation at test as misconceptions) at least in part upon ob-
time. Inert knowledge devoid of deeper conceptual servations they have made about the world
around them
• Students modify scientific understanding
4 Its
participants include Erma Anderson, Lucille Andolfo, G. Kip
when they discover conflicts between their
Bollinger, Leah Bricker, Al Byers, Rowena S. Douglas, Sue
Drummer, Jeane Dughi, Sue Darnell Ellis, Brenda Evans, Joseph observations of the natural world and their
Exline, Mary Ann Fitzgerald, Robin Fogarty, Tom Gadsden, understanding, adapting new explanations
Mary Gromko, Carol Hanley, Tony Heiting, Marcie Hickman, that seem plausible to them
Christina Hilton, Linda Jordan, Page Keeley, Tricia Kerr, Shelley • Learning is a social activity, and students
Lee, Kathleen Lundgren, Arthur E. Mitchell, Brett Moulding,
specifically “benefit from opportunities to ar-
George Nelson, Harold Pratt, Elise Russo, Linda Sinclair, Cheryl
Tibbals, Deborah Tucker, C. J. Varnon, Laurie Martin Vermilyea, ticulate their ideas . . . challenge each others’
Richard Vineyard, Steve Weinberg, Marsha Winegarner, and Jim ideas, and in doing so reconstruct their own
Woodland. ideas” (p. 119)
C 2002)
Networking for Leadership, Inquiry, and Systemic Thinking:
A New Approach to Inquiry-Based Learning
Al Byers1,3 and Mary Ann Fitzgerald2
Recent changes in science education standards have mandated a prominent place for inquiry
learning in science curricula. However, change from traditional teaching methods to a more
inquiry-centered approach is difficult to enact. While research to date demonstrates a number
of successful inquiry implementations, it also reveals a slow rate of change along with possible
reasons for difficulty in adopting inquiry instructional methods. Further, inquiry reforms have
failed in the past. The Networking for Leadership, Inquiry, and Systemic Thinking (NLIST)
initiative, sponsored by the Council of State Science Supervisors and NASA, proposes to
facilitate inquiry through systemic reform designed to avoid the mistakes of the past and in-
corporate new knowledge about teaching and learning. Systemic elements targeted for change
include a standard conceptualization of science as inquiry, instructional materials, professional
development, administrative support and leadership, facilities, community involvement, and
technology infrastructure. To date, the initiative has created a detailed definition of inquiry
learning and a rubric for evaluating instructional materials against this definition. This pa-
per presents the theoretical and empirical foundations for the NLIST initiative, describes its
progress, and outlines future goals.
KEY WORDS: inquiry; science education; systemic change.
INTRODUCTION A prominent feature of these new Standards is
inquiry. The NSES contain substantial inquiry compo-
Over the past 8 years, the science education nents, asserting that students acquire the abilities to
profession has achieved two important milestones: conduct scientific investigations and understand how
the Project 2061 Benchmarks for Science Literacy inquiry works. They also set forth standards for teach-
(American Academy for the Advancement of Sci- ing scientific inquiry. According to NSES,
ence [AAAS], 1993) and the National Science Edu-
Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which
cation Standards (National Research Council [NRC], scientists study the natural world and propose ex-
1996). With the advent of these documents, arguments planations based on the evidence derived from their
over what science content students should learn have work. Inquiry also refers to the activities of students
subsided. Additionally, 49 states now have adopted in which they develop knowledge and understanding
their own science education content standards, de- of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how
scientists study the natural world. (NRC, 2000, p. 1)
rived from the Benchmarks and the National Science
Education Standards (NSES). This definition, along with the standardized expec-
tation that inquiry must occur in classrooms, pro-
vides an important impetus for the reformation of
1 Department of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Polytechnic Uni- science education. In an effort to increase under-
versity, Blacksburg, Virginia.
2 Department of Instructional Technology, University of Georgia,
standing of inquiry, the NRC produced Inquiry and
Athens, Georgia. the National Science Education Standards (NRC,
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at 2812 Wellsley 2000), popularly known as the “Addendum.” How-
Ct., Blacksburg, Virginia 24060; e-mail: ever, lasting and pervasive reform requires more than
81
1059-0145/02/0300-0081/0 °
C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
, 82 Byers and Fitzgerald
standards, definitions, and guidelines alone. The def- understanding limits the application and transfer of
inition presented above needs elaboration. Although knowledge to new and unique situations. Many schol-
the Addendum provides exciting examples of class- ars agree that while relevant prior knowledge is a pre-
room inquiry, reproducing these results in typical sci- requisite for construct development, content knowl-
ence classrooms under prevailing conditions is dif- edge alone does little to advance the habits of mind
ficult. A teacher motivated to use inquiry learning and comprehension of the scientific process that we
is faced with a number of questions: How might an wish to develop in our students (NRC, 2000). At least
educator identify instructional materials that support since the days of John Dewey, inquiry learning has
inquiry? What strategies make inquiry learning man- been suggested as a solution to this problem.
ageable and productive? On a broader scale, what At its core, inquiry embodies the scientific
components of the educational system need revision method. Students participate in experiments and
from an inquiry perspective if it is going to improve? investigations that require them to develop ques-
A new initiative called NLIST4 (Networking for tions and hypotheses, collect data, analyze data, and
Leadership, Inquiry, and Systemic Thinking) has been draw and test conclusions. Inquiry learning typically
launched to facilitate the implementation of inquiry at seeks to excite curiosity in students, encouraging them
the classroom level. Sponsored jointly by the Council to investigate questions on their own initiative and
of State Science Supervisors (CSSS) and the National grounding this activity in authentic situations. In ad-
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the dition to the basic abilities of conducting a scientific
NLIST vision has initiated creative and collabora- investigation, inquiry learning should include an un-
tive networking processes to encourage more effec- derstanding of how scientists do their work (NRC,
tive science education program implementation. The 2000). As part of these two key elements, science in-
purpose of the NLIST initiative is to describe the ways quiry should engage students in the overall evaluation
in which key system elements need to change so as to of existing and evolving scientific knowledge.
implement science as inquiry. In this paper, we seek Working from this basic and traditional under-
to begin a dialog regarding important questions ad- standing of the nature of scientific inquiry, substantial
dressed by NLIST. To do so, we will first explore some research supports the efficacy of inquiry as an instruc-
of the research supporting inquiry as an instructional tional model. The Addendum presents some of these
model, followed by some possible explanations of why research findings, drawing heavily upon Bransford
it has failed as a reform effort in the past. We then et al.’s report called How People Learn (Bransford
examine theoretical and empirical underpinnings of et al., 2000). This comprehensive report provides not
systemic change theory, synthesizing them with a de- only key research findings regarding inquiry, but also
scription of how NLIST expects to apply them to enact explanations for why inquiry has enjoyed success as
these changes. an instructional method
• Understanding science involves more than ob-
THE VALUE OF INQUIRY IN SCIENCE taining a knowledge base alone, including com-
EDUCATION prehending what these ideas mean, application
of these ideas, and strategies for scientific
Few professionals in the science education thinking and problem solving
community today believe that science education • Students build scientific understanding (as well
should exclusively involve rote fact recitation at test as misconceptions) at least in part upon ob-
time. Inert knowledge devoid of deeper conceptual servations they have made about the world
around them
• Students modify scientific understanding
4 Its
participants include Erma Anderson, Lucille Andolfo, G. Kip
when they discover conflicts between their
Bollinger, Leah Bricker, Al Byers, Rowena S. Douglas, Sue
Drummer, Jeane Dughi, Sue Darnell Ellis, Brenda Evans, Joseph observations of the natural world and their
Exline, Mary Ann Fitzgerald, Robin Fogarty, Tom Gadsden, understanding, adapting new explanations
Mary Gromko, Carol Hanley, Tony Heiting, Marcie Hickman, that seem plausible to them
Christina Hilton, Linda Jordan, Page Keeley, Tricia Kerr, Shelley • Learning is a social activity, and students
Lee, Kathleen Lundgren, Arthur E. Mitchell, Brett Moulding,
specifically “benefit from opportunities to ar-
George Nelson, Harold Pratt, Elise Russo, Linda Sinclair, Cheryl
Tibbals, Deborah Tucker, C. J. Varnon, Laurie Martin Vermilyea, ticulate their ideas . . . challenge each others’
Richard Vineyard, Steve Weinberg, Marsha Winegarner, and Jim ideas, and in doing so reconstruct their own
Woodland. ideas” (p. 119)
