When many of us hear the phrase "scientific method," we think of a formal process for investigating a scientific question or problem. When we were in school, we were taught that scientists go through a series of steps to find a solution to a problem or find evidence to support or disprove a theory. It all seemed rather cold, analytical, and formal. As in many disciplines, the teaching of science has undergone significant changes and has moved away from the rigidity of a fixed series of steps in what was formerly called the scientific method. It now embraces a more holistic process of inquiry — one where intuition is valued, but informed, and one where the process of inquiry, while still systematic, is not as rigid as it was once framed.

To illustrate this change in thinking, you can turn to the seminal publication in teaching scientific literacy, Science for All Americans (a publication of Project 2061, which "consists of recommendations on what understandings and ways of thinking are essential for all citizens in a world shaped by science and technolgy.") I don't think they use the term "scientific method" at all. Instead they talk about curiosity, imagination, and awe as essential habits of mind, terms we don't normally associate with the scientific method we were taught in school.

I think the best analogy that I can make to help understand scientific method is practitioner inquiry. Both scientific inquiry and practitioner inquiry are about shedding light on a quandary through systematically collecting and analyzing data. Both start with observations of the world around us: the natural world in one case, the classroom in the other. Certain things strike us in those observations: some inconsistency, confusion, a question. This might lead to more observing, reading or talking to others, or perhaps consulting an expert. We might clarify the problem and intuit a hypothesis, than decide to gather some data to shed some light on that hypothesis. This new data might in turn lead to more questions or more information gathering. Sooner or later we organize and analyze all our data, check it with what others may know, get input, talk it through with buddies, maybe go back and collect more data, and the process continues.

This inquiry process is organized and reasoned, but not necessarily linear. It is in fact, quite messy, and it's not just a science thing. Inquiry is, in fact, an important problem-solving strategy in our everyday lives.

Fair Trial and Scientific Inquiry
I think what folks confuse is the "fair trial" process with what we are now calling scientific inquiry. A fair trial is setting up experiments with controlled variables. It conjures up images of white-coated lab technicians staring into mysterious mixtures in beakers and test tubes. This is but one small part of what can be included in the scientific process.

One reason for shifting our thinking from the old connotations of the scientific method to that of inquiry is to demystify the doing of science, and to encourage adult basic education teachers to integrate a bit of scientific inquiry into their curriculum, to stir that curiosity, imagination, and wonderment in learning about our world.

Judy Titzel works at World Education in Boston, and tutors math and science. She can be reached at: jatdp@aol.com