RULES OF THIS WIKI PAGE
This is a collaborative list. Feel free to add your own ideas (click the "edit" button at the top or bottom of the page), but do not delete anything! If you disagree, place a comment in the forum at the bottom of the page.
The importance of this section is that a) it colours they way we lay out the whole course and b) it describes the process of science which we will apply in this wiki to be able to make it "evidence-based".
Objectives for this section
(This section builds on the definition in "What is Science" and covers those objectives set out in "Aims of a Science Education" which are not covered by the content sections.)
- to excite and enthuse children with a sense of awe and wonder at the natural world.
- That "science" should be seen as a "normal" activity, one which applies ordinary standards of evidence to explain real-life observations.
- Science is NOT a collection of facts and figures. It is an evidence-based approach to finding out information / knowledge / "truth" about the world and how it works. This approach is significantly different to other approaches.
- to cause children to understand the importance of evidence when making decisions and to be able to judge whether the claims of the media, advertisers, politicians, journalists, etc, are evidence-based and reliable.
- to equip students with the idea that a scientific approach can be applied to everyday life, not just to the "special" cases presented to them in textbooks etc. So, for example, they can use their knowledge of science when making decisions about beauty / health products.
- to understand the term "pseudoscience" and the misuse of "science" by advertisers and others who hijack the terminology of science to validate their opinions or products.
- That science has wider implications
- to demonstrate that the fruits of science have ethical, political, cultural and social implications.
- to develop an appreciation of how science has contributed to the historical and cultural development of our society.
- To know how to use the science method
- give practical experience of how scientists make observations of the natural world, come up with hypotheses and do experiments to obtain evidence to support or disprove these hypotheses.
- how to obtain reliable results via controlling variables, fair testing etc
- to appreciate that scientific findings are sometimes presented in statistical form; to understand the term "statistically significant"
- to understand the importance of sample sizes, control groups, placebos etc. when the experimenter cannot control all the variables.
- to be able to assess risk
Science as "critical thinking".
Critical Thinking is a method applied to any claim to see whether we can rely on it.
- is it "just an opinion"?
- is it biased?
- does the proposer have a vested interest?
- are there errors in the reasoning?
The method of science can be seen as a special use of critical thinking which is applied to explaining natural phenomena.
- it is based on evidence, not opinion, hearsay, tradition or authority.
- it applies tests to the evidence: "were the experiments valid?" (did the experimenter control the variables, make it a "fair test")
- if controlled conditions are not available (as in biological systems) was the sample size large enough?
- are the results reliable? ( do they fit in with other results? is this a meta-study? are they statistically significant?
- has a causal link been found, or is this simply an unexplained correlation?
Levels of answer which science can provide.
Science cannot provide definitive answers to all questions. They can be divided into 3 broad groups:
Where variables can be controlled and definite answers given
This applies to questions of fact such as "what is the tensile strength of this alloy?" or "are Sainsbury's carrier bags stranger than Tesco's?" "does antibiotic Z kills these bacteria?".
Where control of variables is not possible
Experiments with biological or social systems are too complex to control all variables. here experimental design needs to try to exclude the variation between individuals by using large sample sizes, double-blind experiments and statistical analysis.
Where the evidence is in statistical form
"The likelihood of rain tomorrow is 80%" "The chances of getting pregnant while using a condom is 1 in 1000." "smokers chances of getting lung cancer are 200x the chances of a non-smoker." "86% more patients showed a beneficial effect compared to the placebo"
Where science can advise, but not decide
Questions such as "should we develop nuclear power?" allow science only an advisory role. Political or moral dimensions can only be informed by science. Science can give definitive answers to the physics of the process and the strength of the materials, can give statistical answers to the likelihood of an accident and predict likely outcomes from an accident, but it cannot take the decision.
Proposals for "Thinking scientifically" to replace HSW
How you can use science methods in everyday life
familiar contexts
everyday experiences
not just experiments
risk
How mainstream science is carried out in the modern world
- Most science is carried out by individuals working in organisations such as universities, research centres and private companies.
- Different ways in which science is funded - from taxpayer money to private enterprise
- The role of peer review in establishing the validity of research.
- The need to carry out a "research review" before embarking on a new piece of research
- Newly emerging methods of scientific publication - in particular developments in web-publishing
- An understanding and appreciation of new technologies / equipment which are transforming how science is done - from particle accelerators to genome decoders.
History and Philosophy of Science
- Example
Important ideas/concepts/observations/"facts"
Anything else that you'd like to mention?
- Example
These may not be "theories", but are nevertheless vital aspects of a study of this area:
- Example
Other things
These may not be "theories", but are nevertheless vital aspects of a study of this area:
- Example
Disagree with anything above?
It will be very helpful to those reading your comment if you have altered your Forum signature to include your Science specialism, your number of years of teaching experience and any post of responsibility that you hold. Click here and then select My Profile to do this now.
We propose a dedicated unit for "being scientific" because, whilst we appreciate that many of these elements could be taught as part of an "embedded" scheme (as is the case with 21st C science etc.), we want to underline the importance of this material and ensure that it is not sidelined or thought of as "secondary". (Comment posted by Stuart, Mike and Alom)
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
I loathe How Science Works. This is because it is a shabby excuse for something so important. It is truly deplorable that it's incarnation makes such a mockery of the underlying objectives. How Science Works should be consigned to history as quickly as possible (much like Windows Millenium Edition), to be replaced by what it should have been all along.
I think that HSW made a fundamental mistake — it combined (and therefore hopelessly confused) what Science is (as a monolithic enterprise spanning continents, peoples and centuries) with how an individual investigates in a Scientific manner. The former is so important, but has been lost in the haze of HSW. The latter are skills that should be embedded in any science curriculum as second nature to the science teacher — and yet HSW has reduced it to simplistic bolt-on activities with embarassingly naive and narrow assessments.
To illustrate this, below I have rearranged the HSW PoS statements. This is not in any way a vindication of the statements, but simply a way of highlighting my gripes.
The process of Science — What I'm calling "What is Science?", to be taught explicitly, separately to other content
Training students to become Scientists — what I'm referring to as "Scientific skills", to be taught implicitly as part of normal teaching activities
Superfluous and unnecessary statements
I suggest that we move the skills to the Scientific Skills page and here, on this page, we focus on expanding and refining the five process of Science bullet points, developing ideas of how to deliver this explicitly in the curriculum.
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
1.1 Data, evidence, theories and explanations
1.2 Practical and enquiry skills
1.3 Communication skills
1.4 Applications and implications of science
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
There seems to be no agreement about what pupils should be taught. Sometimes it seems to be about “doing a proper experiment”, but this is usually applied only to experiments where variables can be controlled.
Sometimes it seems to be about applying science to everyday situations..
So, I think the first thing we need is a discussion about what this section is about.
I am having an interesting time with my yr 9s doing a HSW topic, trying to link up the so-called HSW skills about reliability, line-of-best-fit etc with analysing adverts for Activia and Petit Filou for the science behind their claims.
My instinct is that our “learning objective” for the non-academic route should be mostly about challenging claims while the “proper science” route should include not only the traditional “scientific experiment” route, but also some overt discussion and clear guidelines on how science is applied when variables cannot be controlled.
I have very little idea at the moment on how to do this.
Any thoughts?
Useful materials?
Does anyone have a link to the NC on this?
Mike Bell, science teacher and trainer in evidence-based practice
I agree with you Mike in that I feel the "non-academic" route should enable students to challenge claims made by the media etc. However, at the same time, I feel the non-academic route must also incorporate some exposure to the main theories of science. I think it's part of a student's cultural education to be aware of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the particle theory of matter and the periodic table. Shakespeare is difficult, but I suspect his work is included in all English courses.
I run an interesting activity at my school whereby we look at claims made in advertising, for example a non-sensical web article about the acid content of foods and we see how we can investigate those claims. I feel this is a useful activity.
In addition to this type of activity, "how science works" should provide some insight into the culture of science - so that students go away with some understanding of how science is carried out "for real", outside of the school laboratory. It is important for students to appreciate that science requires consensus - that it is not just a question of individual scientists coming up with ideas / explanations which are then magically absorbed into the body of "scientific" knowledge. A better understanding of this aspect of science by more people may have prevented the MMR scandal (and "scandal" is the best word I can think of).
I think the definition of "theory" is incredibly important. That students appreciate that this word is used in a very different way in science. I use the example with my students that saying something like "my theory is that Thierry Henri planned that hand ball" is entirely different to saying ""the theory of evolution by natural selection predicts that XXX".
Those are my thoughts for now…I'll add more soon.
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker