First, let me say I am committed to Inquiry in our classrooms(it is a pretty good approach outside them as well) however find myself unable to figure exactly when and how content is to be addressed. For example, in the case of the geologist mapping the Washington coast, inquiry and model building( along with investigation and data collecting) led him to a reasoned explanation of the dead trees phenomena. HOWEVER, how did he gain the content knowledge that allowed him to become a geologist in the first place?

The references to the cultural and social components of learning science are thought-provoking,particularly the role of language in scientific Inquiry. The authors cite debate and argumentation as a "prominent, if not central feature"of learning and doing science.Does this mean the vocabulary, theories etc. should be taught directly (at least a core )or,must this also be aquired through the investigative process?

The section on addressing prior knowledge and, the need to recognize the the social aspect of learning, raises issues
about the importance of having discussions and reasoning take place in groups.

Maggie's response to Marsha:
I have found that as students discuss social issues that address science content, they internalize the science concept. (Metacognition in action?)Group discussions are one way I can assess prior as well as post learning of a certain concept.

I like your point when you said that inquiry is a good thing in Science but the content needs to be addressed too!
I'm thinking that provided with enough available data and technology both inquiry and content will be addressed.