Graham Preston

Jan 28th 2015

Practices, not just Inquiry
In Rodger W. Bybee's article Scientific and Engineering Practices in K-12 Classrooms, he elaborates
on the updated practices in the new NSTA framework, discusses why the term practices is used as
opposed to inquiry, and justifies the inclusion of engineering in the new framework. Finally he
explains how science and engineering practices are complementary and how they can both be
integrated into curriculum. Bybee's article compliments Chapter 3 of both the framework and the
reader's guide. I will briefly summarize and analyze each section of Bybee's article as well as provide
an overall picture of it's utility.
Bybee begins by elaborating on each of the 8 science and engineering practices laid out in the
framework. He explains each in layman's terms and provides concrete examples of each at the lower,
middle and high school levels. He puts these side-by-side with the practices as written in the
framework. At first I found this section very confusing and a poor way of presenting the information,
since I had not read the practices. However, I realize that this essay is meant to be read with the reader's
guide to the framework. Once I went and read Chapter 3 I found this section to be worthwhile. I
appreciated, as I believe other teachers would, having the practices written in accessible language with
concrete examples of what a practice would look like in my classroom. As mentioned later in Bybee's
article, the implementation of scientific inquiry was not successful across the board. Scientific inquiry
sounds great in theory, but I wonder if teachers struggled to understand what it actually looks like in a
classroom. Having these concrete examples of the practices made it clearer in my mind.
Bybee focuses next on the shift from inquiry to practices. He provides the historical background,
tracing the evolution from scientific method (memorizing) to scientific process (student involvement,
learning about process) to scientific inquiry (student driven, learning through inquiry process). He
notes the increase in activities and investigations throughout this evolution, but also notes that scientific
inquiry wasn't implemented across the board, as mentioned earlier. Bybee refers to new educational
research in an attempt to provide context for the choice of practices.
Without the original text, I found this section insufficient in any justification for the new vocabulary.
Reading Chapter 3 gave me a much clearer picture of the purpose of the change than Bybee. Practices
are the set of tools used in the scientific or engineering process. They are the skills used to grow,
analyze, and communicate scientific or engineering knowledge. This definition includes inquiry as one
such skill, but avoids the idea that there is just one. By stating these practices explicitly, rather than
implicitly within inquiry, it allows them to be better defined. It allows for teaching tools to be created
so students learn these practices. I see this as a big step forward because it will lead to a clearer picture
of how teachers can develop the skills (practices) necessary for higher level inquiry, which as
previously very unclear in my mind. I saw where I wanted to get there, but had no clear guidelines of
how to build towards it.
Returning to Bybee's contribution to this topic, I see the value in linking the current idea to it's
evolution. I think this is important for current teachers ( opposed to us new teachers without context)
who I know can be fed up with the newest fad or newest language in teaching their subject. Just
another idea that will be gone in 5 years. By presenting the concept of practices as simply an extension
of current pedagogy, the idea becomes more approachable.

Bybee provides similar links to current STEM practice as a bridge to engineering in the new
framework. He attempts to show that many teachers already include engineering tasks and that all that
is required is labelling them as such and looking at them as engineering rather than scientific practices.
I agree with this, although I hope that with the emphasis on investigations and practices more
engineering design will occur. I hope to see a shift in engineering design from mostly fun activities to
valuable opportunities to learn. Finally Bybee argues that both science and engineering education are
complementary and that learning both practices can be accomplished through investigations. To me this
is obvious but it is important that teachers see the relationship and the opportunity for engaging
students.
I believe this new framework will find success that scientific inquiry did not find, in part due to much
of what Bybee lays forth. Broadening the goal of science education to include a large focus on practices
is both more practical, since we want students to go forth and actually be able to do something with
their knowledge, and more fun.