Evolving focus in science instruction
Adapting Science Education: A Look at Explicit Teaching vs Inquiry Learning
Professor Russell Tytler from Deakin University emphasizes the evolution of science education, addressing the ongoing debate between explicit teaching and inquiry learning, and their influence on curriculum design.
"We should be motivating students to see themselves as engaged and inquisitive with science, making it their personal mission rather than just another subject to pass through." - Professor Russell Tytler, Deakin University
Insight: The ongoing discussions on explicit teaching and inquiry learning in science education revolve around their distinct instructional methodologies and the impact they have on curriculum design. Both methods present unique benefits and obstacles.
Going by the Book: Explicit Teaching
With explicit teaching, a teacher provides structured, direct instruction by explaining scientific principles and skills in a systematic manner. Studies suggest considerable gains in student performance, particularly on standardized tests, when this method is applied effectively. For instance, using peer modeling, schools in Australia saw a boost in Year 3 and Year 5 reading and numeracy scores [3]. Advocates argue that explicit teaching is essential for laying the foundation for learning and strongly beneficial for students with learning difficulties, as it ensures a thorough understanding through structured explanations and practice [5].
Hands-On Learning: Inquiry Learning
Inquiry learning encourages student-led exploration, through experiments, investigations, and observations allowing students to generate questions and gain understanding through discovery. This technique syncs with learning frameworks focusing on conceptualization, as it helps students organize knowledge, link ideas, and think like scientists rather than just memorize facts [1][4]. It is considered effective for nurturing intellectual traits like curiosity and critical thinking, backed by strategies like project-based learning and refined questioning techniques [2].
The Great Debate: Balancing Act
The conundrum centers on finding the appropriate balance between these approaches in science curriculum design:
- Acquiring Knowledge vs Deep Understanding: Critics of inquiry-based learning contend that without sufficient instruction, students might develop inaccurate notions or shallow understanding. Conversely, exclusive reliance on explicit teaching can foster rote learning and disengagement, failing to develop scientific thinking skills [3].
- Learning Framework: Inquiry-focused curricula prioritize comprehension-based learning, redesigning science classes around big ideas, inquiry processes, and scientific thinking skills. This requires a shift from traditional content coverage to fostering conceptual connections [1]. Explicit teaching, on the other hand, requires curricula that include well-defined learning objectives and sequence skill development for mastery before moving on.
- Teaching Styles: The debate unfolds around how teachers are seen—either as the primary providers of knowledge offering well-structured lessons (explicit teaching), or as guides facilitating student discovery and reasoning (inquiry learning). Some programs like the IB PYP Science Subject Overview 2025 propose roles that merge explicit instruction with support for inquiry to increase learning engagements [1].
- A Symphony of Methods: Growing viewpoints suggest that combining explicit teaching and inquiry learning—where direct instruction is used for foundational knowledge followed by inquiry tasks to apply and expand that understanding—can improve learning outcomes while optimizing curriculum design [2][5]. This hybrid approach aims to capitalize on the benefits of both methods, ultimately preparing students to think critically and excel in science.
In essence, current discussions revolve around creating thoughtful curriculum designs that strike a balance between explicit instruction and inquiry learning to foster deep conceptual understanding, skill development, and analytical thinking. Effective science curricula increasingly incorporate clear teacher guidance alongside inquiry opportunities, with the ultimate goal of readying learners not only to comprehend scientific facts but to actively engage as scientists across various contexts [1][2][3].
"Professor Tytler's suggestion for motivating students implies a need for a learning approach that fosters engagement and inquisitiveness, which can be achieved by incorporating elements of both explicit teaching and inquiry learning in the science curriculum."
"Furthermore, in the ongoing debate about balancing explicit teaching and inquiry learning, it's essential to recognize that a hybrid approach combining both methodologies could potentially maximize learning outcomes, while fostering deep conceptual understanding, skill development, and analytical thinking in science education and self-development."
