science...again....someone shoot me now

[Capt_Uhura]

Yes, when DS was in school, he did a science fair project. Of all the entrants, there was only 2-3 that were actual scientific inquiry....all the others were demonstrations where the child was given the outcome beforehand. I do know of someone, AuntPol????, whose science fair has different divisions - one for demonstrations, one for scientific inquiry, one for research, etc.

 

Another example from my field. For a long time it was anathema to suggest that suppressor T cells exist. When you are sick, for example, your immune system is activated (woken up) and goes to work fighting the invaders. Some folks postulated that there must be a break or something to then suppress that activation. Many immunologists were shackled by the current paradigm. You were ridiculed at conferences for daring to bring up such an idiotic notion. Well, fortunately, there were a few (probably grad students or postdocs who aren't yet restrained by the current paradigm) who set out to look for what shouldn't/couldn't exist. And guess what? They found it. :tongue_smilie: It is now universally accepted that suppressor T cells do exist.

[Capt_Uhura]

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Science has 2 main parts: 1) the body of knowledge and 2) the methodology for how to answer scientific questions.

 

The weekly “experiments†that are a part of many science curricula try to serve 2 functions simultaneously. They try

 

1. To help students understand the body of knowledge. If you simply cannot believe that 2 balls fall at the same rate, go try it and you will see.
   
2. To help students become acquainted with the methodology for how to answer scientific questions.
   

 

 

Abstract thinkers do not typically require #1. They are the kids who say “do we have to do this?†“I already know what will happen.†In contrast, concrete thinkers often find that the hands-on activities really solidifies their understanding of scientific concepts. Each parent/teacher needs to identify what the child's learning style is, and do what is appropriate for the child.

 

 

Where I struggle with weekly “experiments,†is how they attack #2 – becoming acquainted with the scientific method. The way it typically goes is that the book gives you an activity to do with your children which has expected outcomes that you are trying to achieve. The methods are given to you in a “cook book†style and the student is supposed to write up the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Here are my concerns:

 

1. Because the question is already posed, the student never learns that science is about asking questions and looking for answers. It is someone else's question they are answering. They are never taught to ask a question of their own. They are never taught that their questions are valid, interesting, and answerable in an objective manner.
   
2. Because the methods are already designed, the student never has to puzzle over HOW to answer his/her question. This activity requires logical thinking and problem solving. These weekly demonstrations/activities give the misconception that answering a scientific question is as simple as following the directions, and scientific inquiry is NEVER so simple.
   
3. Because the student is looking for a certain result, when the result is not produced, students are taught that they did not get the right answer. This is the antithesis of scientific thinking. Data is data. It is not Wrong. Your hypothesis has just been disproved. These activities teach students that what you expect should happen, should happen, and if it doesn't, you need to do the experiment again and again until you get what you expect. What?!?!? THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
   

 

 

So here are some things to think about for your individual student:

 

1. If your student wants to be a scientist, I would urge you to have him/her do a large independent study at least once before heading to university to major in science. I have met graduate students who are serviously disappointed with their choice of science. They love learning scientific knowledge but don't like scientific inquiry at all. Better to learn early that scientific inquiry is not your thing and go into science writing or something else instead.
   
2. If your student is a concrete thinker, do the weekly demonstrations to help solidify his/her understanding of the concepts. But be clear with them that in real scientific inquiry, the questions, methods, and results are not known ahead of time. Then go and read some really good biographies of scientists where the true difficulties are laid out and not sugar coated.
   
3. If your student finds that weekly scientific activities are fun and that they are really helping with writing up lab reports etc, then try to get your student to alter the hypothesis slightly. Go a bit further, ask a question that is not in the text. If the question is “does fertilizer help plants grow?†Well, duh, of course it does, everyone knows that. How about “Which fertilizer makes plants grow taller?†This is a much better question, and would still take the same amount of time.
   
4. And of course, if you have the time and energy, do a science-fair type project. It is soooooo fun and leads to such unexpected learning!
   

 

 

I truly believe that scientific inquiry is misunderstood by most of the public. Pseudoscience is elevated to the level of science. Politicians ignore scientific data. The public expects a quick answer to a difficult question or assumes that scientists don't know anything because the facts are always changing. The list could go on and on. These are problems with understanding scientific inquiry, not understanding scientific knowledge. Scientific learning is incredibly important for decision makers and voters alike, which is why I am spending time posting!:D

 

 

Ruth

[Catherine]

I've talked about with my kids. All three are very interested in science. Einstein is a great example of this-though he did study physics at the university level before he wrote his relativity papers, the original idea came to him when he was daydreaming (oops, doing "thought experiments") when he was a teen, before he attended a university.

 

It's well-known that many, dare I say most? important, original discoveries, are made by non-scientists. IMO that HAS to be because they are not yet indoctrinated and willing to ask riskier or less "relevant" questions. ITA that encouraging questioning and at least thinking about designing experiments is vital to good science education.

[PenKase]

:lurk5::lurk5::lurk5:

[lewelma]

many, dare I say most? important, original discoveries, are made by non-scientists.

 

This may have been true in the past, but I seriously doubt it now. Science is just too expensive to be able to make important discoveries without having access to equipment -- general lab equipment for Biology and Chemistry, orbiting telescopes in Astronomy, CERN in physics. This equipment is required for making discoveries in most fields and costs millions or even billions of dollars.

 

Also, in the past, not much was known about any field, so there were many discoveries to make that could be made by the amateur. There is a phrase, "standing on the backs of giants," which is so true in science today. You don't make a discovery without reading the work of the people who came before you, a process that takes at least a year of full time reading, and up to 5 years more part time (I read 10,000 pages of scientific articles:tongue_smilie:). You are suggesting, I think, that this reading indoctrinates individuals to a certain way of thinking, leading to research which is "more of the same." But most fields have come so far in even just the last 20 years, that you simply could not ask a question without knowing what is already known.

 

Most of the discoveries today that are made by non-scientists are the discovery of a new species, supernova, or archaeological find. There is a lovely quote by Pasteur, "Chance favors the prepared mind," and many of these types of discoveries require a great knowledge of what you are looking at and looking for. But these types of discoveries are of a thing, they are not answering a question or developing a theory. I'm not saying they're not important, but these types of discoveries often get way more press than they deserve IMHO because they are easy to understand, which is why the public is aware of them.

 

They are willing to ask riskier or less "relevant" questions.

Most of the "risky or less relevant" questions today are done not by newbies or non-scientists, but by scientists who are working interdisciplinaryly. These individuals have a huge knowledge of one field and apply it to another. This knowledge gives them a fresh viewpoint. But I don't believe they could ask a decent question without having all the knowledge from the other field behind them.

 

I don't want to be argumentative (sorry if I have been), and I am happy to agree to disagree.

 

Ruth

Edited October 9, 2011 by lewelma

[Capt_Uhura]

I would say that many of the shifts in paradigms are done by graduate students and postdocs. They have access to resources, can write grants for funding and ride on the shirt tails of their mentors.....and are still new enough to question current paradigms. It's a double edged sword. It is often to get research funded that is too outside of the main stream. that means writing a grant for some middle of the road stuff, and using that to fund your more "creative" research.

[Jyniffrec]

Someone mentioned in a previous post something about having the right equipment (or something along those lines) in a homeschool. I can't find the quote right now, but I wanted to ask what equipment is necessary to have a prepared student when they graduate? I ask because I am encountering some lessons in the program we are using that call on equipment that is on the expensive side. I don't mind paying for it, but I want to be sure it will be used. In this case, it is a triple beam balance, but what about other equipment? What should we be keeping our eyes out for?

 

TIA! :001_smile:

[Capt_Uhura]

Jennifer,

 

There is a discussion at the BFSUII yahoogroup on triple beam balance vs digital. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BFSU2/messages

[Jyniffrec]

Jennifer,

 

There is a discussion at the BFSUII yahoogroup on triple beam balance vs digital. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BFSU2/messages

 

Thanks! I will have a look.

[SunshineMom]

I know this is an old thread but I just wanted to thank Ruth for her wonderful guidance and insights into how to teach science. I feel liberated and excited again about science. I discussed the general study/long term experiment approach to science with my dd8 and she was thrilled, telling me she would like to learn more about the biochemistry of soil. We will both be learning a ton and because of Ruth (and others too), I feel like I can do this-thanks again!

[lewelma]

I know this is an old thread but I just wanted to thank Ruth for her wonderful guidance and insights into how to teach science. I feel liberated and excited again about science. I discussed the general study/long term experiment approach to science with my dd8 and she was thrilled, telling me she would like to learn more about the biochemistry of soil. We will both be learning a ton and because of Ruth (and others too), I feel like I can do this-thanks again!

 

You have really made my day, Jewel. I hope you and your daughter love it as much as we have.

 

The interest in this thread last year inspired me to write up this year's investigation in detail here http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361740 . It seems that a lot of people don't know how to guide their children through an investigation where the outcome is unknown. So I thought a week by week description of our progress might help those families interested in this kind of project.

 

Ruth

[frankcassiesmom]

Bumping for those who haven't gleaned the amazing information in this thread.

[abrightmom]

Ruth,

 

:001_smile::001_smile::001_smile:You are such a blessing. :001_smile::001_smile::001_smile:

[Nan in Mass]

Bumping. And cross posting.

 

What an amazing thread! Ruth, where were you 14 years ago when I began homeschooling lol. I would have LOVED a thread like this then. I did wind up doing something very similar to this (mostly because nothing else seemed either to happen or to feel like the real sort of science homeschoolers ought to be able to do), but if I'd had this thread early on, I would have done a much better job.

 

Nan

[3us4]

I vote for Nancy Larson. Have tried a 'zillion' programs (so it seems) and found Nancy Larson to be a big hit. If you call, they are very helpful in giving you advice, etc. You can also speak with parents who use it, too.

 

If you want to beef it up, try Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding. Beware, however, if you purchase the e-book. It's not in a printable format. Not to worry, the bound book costs about $25.00 and is a bargain b/c it spans several ages. There is a lot of information in these volumes, including lesson plans laid out for you. Only thing about BFSU is there are no worksheets. If you Google, BFSU, you'll find a plethora of folks who have created their own worksheets and have generously offered them free for download. They'll also steer you to other resources such as suggested scope and sequence for the program. You mentioned being Christian. I like to incorporate Considering God's Creation's Bible Reading portion into my lessons.

 

One more thing I found: Great Science Adventures. I really like this program. It's not repetitive enough to meet my daughter's learning needs, but it's an excellent, comprehensive and cost efficient program.

[Catherine]

Please give me some quick guidance, someone. We did a great project last year, fifth grade, in biology. This year is astronomy and geology. Since an astronomy project seems not possible, we are looking for geology, but ds has announced that he "hates" geology.

 

Okaaay.

 

He wants to do a neurology\psychology type project, kind of similar to what he did last year. I'm really pushing him to consider other topics. What says the hive? Any project is better than none?

[lewelma]

Catherine, I love talking about science projects and am happy to help. But let's start a new thread with a descriptive title so that others will see it and join in!

 

Ruth in NZ

[dharmacat]

I find the current thread title quite descriptive. ;)

 

Waiting & ready to join in the new one! :hurray:

 

Catherine, I love talking about science projects and am happy to help. But let's start a new thread with a descriptive title so that others will see it and join in!

 

Ruth in NZ

 

[Storm Bay]

Bumping this classic thread.

Aargh--not at you, but at the forums sent me to a post from 2 years ago for first unread post!

[Misha]

I realize I'm resurrecting a much older thread, but I wanted to express my gratitude at finding it and reading all the wisdom Lewelma shared. 

I've been so panicked at the idea of teaching science to my girls and this has not only boosted my confidence but also has me looking forward to teaching (and learning with) them. 

[lewelma]

  Thanks for the kind words :blush: and I'm so glad its the thread that keeps on giving.

 

  Here is a thread of threads to keep you busy :001_smile:  : http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/512190-science-posts-organized-by-topic/

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited February 26, 2016 by lewelma

[Reefgazer]

Yup - totally independent and the student takes control of the schedule.  We married EE to Hewitt's Conceptual Physics for a bit more challenge.  DD loves it!

 

How about Exploration Education Physical Science intermediate (maybe w/ advanced?) for the 7th grader along w/ a Physical Science text such as Prentice Hall for further reading. There is an Exploration Education for younger kids as well but I haven't looked it. It's done on the computer. All the supplies come in a kit.

 

[lewelma]

Bumping this because it was a super cool thread!