Demythologizing or Dehumanizing? A Response to Settlage and the Ideals of Open Inquiry

Abstract

I read with intrigue and appreciation John Settlage’s recent editorial piece (Settlage 2007) in this journal regarding the notion of mythology and its pertinence to the ideals of open inquiry. Much of what Settlage described gives me pause and a fresh new perspective on curriculum reform and the ideals of science education. Many of the points of his editorial are fascinating to me and, I believe, productive considerations for our field. Knowing that myths are pervasive and unavoidable empowers us to identify them for what they are and prevent them from stalling progress in any given field or endeavor. I especially appreciate Settlage’s mirror, now turned back upon us to show the discipline its own blemishes. In this case, we see the inconsistencies of advocating the ideals of open inquiry without clear evidence that it supports student learning of science content. As Settlage pointed out, ‘‘Adhering to myths can distract our efforts from legitimate problems that are more deserving of our attention’ ’ (p. 463). Such distractions only weaken our reputation as a scholarly field and in creating and implementing public policy. How can we be supporters of science education when we, ourselves, are being so unscientific in our practice? Clearly, we need to practice what we preach. Yet, there is a subtle but crucial point that Settlage misses as he boldly suggested that ‘‘It is very important for science educators to speak against open inquiry’’ (p. 465). Settlage is quite clear that open inquiry, as a pedagogical tool, may only be getting us into scholarly confusion, as well as distracting future science teachers. However, Settlage seemed to neglect that inquiry is not simply a teaching tool, but a teaching goal. This is not a new-fangled idea. Rutherford (1964) made this distinction clearly, separating inquiry as a teaching tool from inquiry as part of scientific process; and I have no doubt that the process of inquiry is interconnected with other longstanding ideals, such as reflective thinking (Dewey 1910). That is,