Since I am out of sync with the class reflections, I will write a preemptive post on Indigenous knowledge/science before reading Learning Indigenous Science from Place and discussing the topic in 416, in order to accurately reflect upon how my understanding has changed. 
I have some knowledge of Aboriginal pedagogy, as a student in the PDP Indigenous perspectives Teacher Education Module, and I often incorporate the First Peoples principles of learning into my lesson design.  Additionally, I have written an academic paper on how Indigenous knowledge can inform the physical education curricula and the pedagogical practices of teachers.  However, incorporating Indigenous perspectives and content into science has been an area where I feel I have not been entirely effective.   There are the obvious instances in the B.C. curriculum where Indigenous knowledge makes appearances, such in the form of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in Science 10, or through discussion of Aboriginal views on the earth and celestial bodies in Science 9, but I can't help but feel that my lessons on these particular topics in Science have been anything more than piecemeal in nature.

For myself, most of my growth has really come down to acknowledging that this form of pedagogy has something to offer the modern student.  It took me quite a while to reach a place where I fully 'believed in' Indigenous knowledge as more than a holistic way of looking at the world.  I think the main factor which contributed to this realization was when I began to understand that TEK and other First Nations ways of knowing are not individual disciplines to be studied and implemented, but rather ways of learning and understanding that supersede all disciplines.  

Certainly the goal of science is to better grasp the nature of our universe, but it attempts to do so from an objective human perspective, which in itself is fundamentally flawed.  Indigenous knowledge on the other hand recognizes this bias, and attempts to address it through the multiple perspectives of all living things.  This is why many First Nations people will thank all their relations, which includes every interaction affecting that person, from the wind, to the forest, to that individual's own immediate family.  All of these things have a place in the learning of the individual, and by observing and attempting to understand each piece in how it interacts with everything else, the individual can make hypotheses about the way that nature functions.  To do so without some understanding of the multitude of factors involved in a particular organism or piece of matter's existence would be akin to assuming in Western science that one thing is causally related to another, when in fact the true interaction is completely different.  

I think this concept is is best described through the aboriginal concept of spirituality, where a life of the utmost spiritual quality is a "life that experiences to a high degree the connections in the relationship of the self to all reality" (Curwen Doige, 2003).  As a scientific person who would not consider himself spiritual in any way, I found this extremely interesting, because it describes almost exactly the allure of Western science to me.  That we should question the way the world works through experiencing its physical phenomena and understanding these phenomena through all possible angles seems only natural.  I think that such an approach, were it considered by Western science, would help to re-evaluate some of the scientific theories and laws that do not seem to hold up under all circumstances.  Perhaps if we accepted the value of Aboriginal ways of knowing and applied them to the scientific discipline, we would already have solutions to many of the questions regarding the quantum world that have been understood by Aboriginal people (to some degree) for centuries.  Indigenous knowledge is such an exciting topic for me because the more I learn, the more I seem to be rewarded with refreshing new outlooks and furthered understanding.

This week's reading was Chapter 4 of Rodger Bybee's book The Teaching of Science: 21st Century Perspectives.  This chapter focused specifically on the 'teaching of science as inquiry', and delves into some of the history and current research around inquiry in the classroom.  I was quite surprised that educators have been making inquiry a priority since the 1800's, yet still it is still something that is on the back-burner for many modern science teachers.  I really connected with some of the statements in the chapter, especially those of John Dewey, where he discusses inquiry as more of a habit of the scientific mind, rather than a specific way of teaching.  Though he published most of his theories in the early 1900's he was quite ahead of his time, in realizing that many individuals look at science as a body of facts of laws that are undeniably correct, rather than as a method of questioning and gathering evidence.  I have seen this in the science classroom- students want to know what is the 'truth' or 'right answer' and be done with a topic, there is little room in their minds for questioning existing paradigms or challenging scientific ideas that don't stack up with what they believe.  Indeed, many of the prescribed BC science textbooks portray science as a collection of facts or a body of knowledge for students to learn.  Unfortunately, the impression this gives is often one where studying science is nothing more than memorizing facts and mastering theories.

This in my mind is truly a failure of the education system.  We as teachers get too wrapped up in the required content, or the 'scientific method', which many see as a set of rigid steps that a scientist flows through to achieve a conclusion, when in fact there is no such definitive protocol.  I personally believe that the scientific method is simply manipulating a question or idea, working it into new shapes and formats, integrating it into our world, and playing with it in unknown ways.  The scientific method IS inquiry, and it should involve students taking control of  their own learning, where they go through the cyclical inquiring process and increase their understanding. As they learn to think through their own designs and developments, they gain a sense of self-responsibility that can extend outside of the subject area of science. 

I also enjoyed the middle portion of the chapter, because it clarifies for the educator what inquiry in science actually looks like through a set of 'guidelines'.  These chiefly revolve around engaging in questioning and developing evidence through such questioning.  I think this is an area where students can benefit from some 'hands-on' direction from the teacher, as left to their own devices they may have trouble giving evidence the priority it deserves and formulating their explanations based on evidence alone.  The 5th essential inquiry feature is of particular importance in my opinion because through communicating and justifying findings, it gives the budding scientist opportunity to fully form their understanding.  I was further encouraged that these 5 tenets share similar themes to what I have written previously for myself about 'good science teaching'.  My personal view is that it should involve asking questions, describing events & constructing explanations, and these explanations should be tested against current science knowledge and shared.  There is often a lack of openness to alternative thinking and sometimes assumptions get the better of the budding scientist, so fostering  a critical and logical mindframe is very important.

Finally, the later section of the reading deals with research on the use of and effectiveness of inquiry.  I have read some literature on 'open inquiry', where students formulate their own problems to solve as well as the procedure (basically doing actual science), and while I think this may be an effective technique that could be progressively implemented, I am worried that it could result in a lack of directness and a reduction in performance.  So I was encouraged to read the results of the 2008 Seidel et al., study that suggested the ideal form of scientific education to be at least 4 hours of hands on science per week, experienced through multiple curricular outcomes, and in the form of guided inquiry.  I feel that open inquiry has its place, but it may be more appropriate for science clubs, science fairs and extension projects after the core scientific goals are met.  

So all in all a very though-provoking read this week.  I am encouraged to delve more of Rodger Bybee's work and I have found a very educational website on the topic of scientific inquiry called Just Science Now, which contains a large volume of information on the different types of inquiry, and appropriate lessons for facilitating that type in the classroom.