Originally published on the Old Writers Website Tuesday, 30 January 2018, during the throws of developing my Honors Thesis
Republished on current website on 5-2-19, with some minor spelling & grammar edits
It has taken me over 18 years, but I have finally figured out why "science experiments" have always left me feeling squashed and stunted.
Short caveat: The bulk of my science has been taught by Mom. The observations listed herein are NOT a reflection on her teaching (I had more practical science by 12th grade than most people get their freshman year of college). Rather, this is a rant about how science (especially the practical side) is usually designed, taught and implemented.
Also, upon reading through what I've written, I've realized that I may be a little biased. My mind tends to work very quickly (and very independently) when it comes to science, with the result that I have a lot of frustration with the slow, constrained pace of most labs.
Let the ranting begin:
Number 1: That is NOT an experiment.
An experiment, according to the scientific method, is a test/examination/scenario performed to test a hypothesis.
I'm sorry, but telling kids to put random objects in the water in an attempt to illustrate what they already know (not everything in water floats - they have played in the bathtub and/or pool, presumably) in order to explain about density is NOT an experiment. It is an demonstration. An experiment answers a researcher's and/or curious individual's question, it does not prove how smart the teacher is. That is a demonstration. I have no problem with demonstrations (doing the thing you are learning about is very helpful), but for the sake of all concerned, CALL THEM WHAT THEY ARE.
Number 2: The Scientific Method, and how it REALLY works
Chances are you've heard of the Scientific Method: Make an Observation, Create a Hypothesis, Test it with an Experiment, Accept or Reject Hypothesis. (Or some variant thereof).
The age-old density experiment (Yes, it is a pet peeve of mine) usually looks something like this.
*Teacher puts aluminum foil raft on water*
Teacher: "See children, it floats! Now look at but don't touch the supplies around you and make a hypothesis about what will float (I don't care if you already know). Then put everything in the water and tell me if you were right or wrong. That is science! We shall then move on."
Uh, no. First of all, Science is about the WHY. It's not "Will a random object float?"**, (although that is an excellent question and one I'd be happy to pursue,) but "WHY does one object float while another doesn't?". To examine this, you need to let the students investigate their environment. Let their natural curiosity take over. Curious children who are given free reign will usually follow the first couple of steps of the scientific method: make an observation and come up with an explanation. It's part of human nature. The "science" part is simply in testing whether or not your explanation is accurate.
So here's how I would run things:
Teacher: "Ok class, today we are playing with water - please make sure it stays in the tubs! Next to you on the table are a number of objects. Go ahead and put them in the water, and see which float. Then I want you to come up with a reason (a hypothesis) as to why."
*Allows kids to pursue natural curiosity until everybody has played around and come up with an idea - or someone starts getting disruptive.*
Teacher: "Ok, kids! What did you Observe?"
*Listens to team's results*
Teacher: "Now why do you think that might be?"
*Listens to ideas*
"Ok, we've got some really good explanations here. Now, how do you think we can test them to see if they're right?"
*Guides students to set up an Experiment to test their Hypothesis (focus on "If explanation is true, what will be the result?)*
*Lets them run experiment*
Teacher: "So, class, what did you get as your results? Did they match what your explanation predicted?"
etc, etc.
My main point? So often the rushed nature of "experiments" in the classroom focuses on the method itself and how the results prove the teacher's point, never allowing the children to channel their natural curiosity or to truly use the scientific method. It tends to be more of "Here's a thing (that you might find interesting, but we don't care), B.S. a hypothesis in 30 seconds to make the teacher happy (even though the questions you do have about this haven't been answered and we won't give you time to play around with the concept), do the experiment, look at how the results prove the teacher is right, and either turn in your worksheet or attempt to write a paper when you really only have the Methods and Results sections and you don't understand what you did or why".
Science is about the why, and testing whether or not your explanation is accurate. But learning about a concept (and then "testing" it, when you know perfectly well what it "should" be) is not science, and it doesn't prepare you for research, where suddenly YOU have to figure out what your "explanation" (however tentative) is, and how to test whether or not that's the case - and what your explanation predicts, because in the world of research, there is no "prove the teacher is right" answer. You are in uncharted territory. And the way science is usually taught leaves you woefully unprepared. Not in the skills, but in the mindset.
**There is a place for this kind of question ("Will rocks on Mars be like ones on Earth? Why or why not? ex: No, because there is no liquid water on Mars. Now, let's send a Rover to go check"), but it's the kind of question that really requires prior information (ie, do you know anything about Mars or where the rocks came from?). A great example would be the mealworm experiment we designed in Ecology lab. Because my partner and I have Observed that insects move slower in the cold, and because we already know a bit about metabolism, we Hypothesize that mealworms living in the fridge will grow more slowly (ie, spend longer in each life stage) than those grown at room temperature. But if we didn't have that prior knowledge, if we didn't already know SOMETHING about the animal or the things we were testing, we couldn't have made a hypothesis without playing around with the mealworms first. Observation is first on the SM list for a reason.
