*DRAFT* - This article is for review purposes only.
Abstract: This conversational article invites teachers to consider another factor which makes up good science teaching: the nature of science and scientific knowledge. The development of scientific knowledge, even in the classroom, is a collaborative, evidence based activity, driven by curiosity, that cuts across multiple curriculum area’s and to create tentative but powerful rules for understanding, predicting and explaining nature. Teachers can use these ideas to enrich their early childhood science curriculum.
Joe Ireland
MEd, BSc (Psych), Gd dip Ed’n.
0417795509
Introduction
I love teaching science. For me, Science is all about creating knowledge, its about making ideas to help explain and predict things in nature, and then finding ways to test those ideas. Science teaching therefore is the quest to help students use scientific ideas, methods, principles and world views to inform their own creation of knowledge. Science can be a useful and enjoyable aspect of the curriculum that can help students’ experience and explore the amazing world around them.
Sadly, Science is still notorious for it’s weak representation in many early childhood centers and primary schools in Australia (Goodrum, Rennie and Hackling, 2001, QSCC, 2002) and also internationally (Bowman, 1998, Golbeck 1999). Far too many primary teachers don’t like it, don’t understand it, and don’t want to teach it.
However, this assessment can be changed. Chittenden and Jones (1998) recommended that as teachers learn to overcome their fears of Science and science teaching the situation will improve. Perhaps the biggest obstacle for some teachers teaching science is their own sense of self efficacy (Watters and Ginns, 1995). For example, If teachers do not feel that they themselves can understand and use science then they are understandably reluctant to teach it. But there may be more to it than that. Many teachers also doubt their own, and their students, ability to use the principles and ideas of science to create, test, and debate scientific claims. They do not feel confident to act, think and behave as they feel more ‘scientifically literate’ individuals do. Science doesn’t make sense to them (and it’s too often seen as a ‘guy’ thing).
This may be because of the inaccurate understanding of science, scientists and scientific knowledge common to the modern culture, helped along by the media and traditional understandings of science in the community. I feel I don’t need to belabor this image; that of scientists being aging white men in even whiter coats, and even more subtly as a culture accessible only by the intellectually gifted. While these images are being challenged in schools, some outdated traditional perspectives yet remain in the public’s perception of science and the nature of science scientific knowledge (sometimes abbreviated NOS). For instance, many people still see science as tied to one ‘scientific method’ that is used by all scientists to create scientific knowledge, an idea many commentators on science such as Lederman (2004) strongly oppose.
All this has lead to some degree of confusion regarding what science is, and even more regarding how it should be taught. It is the intention of this article that a better appreciation of contemporary understandings of nature of science can help teachers portray the scientific quest for knowledge more accurately. In this article I will draw on aspects of the Nature of Science to share five important principles I hope readers will consider in their journey to teach science and, hopefully, help overcome some of the anxieties sometimes associated with science teaching in these settings.
I also hope that as you read this article you will be pleasantly surprised at how many things you already do that qualify as “Science”. These are not all the possible principles of the nature of science, and there is certainly no requirement to have them organised in this particular order. However, by knowing the nature of science better I hope it may help us include it in schools with more confidence, critical acceptance, and fun.
Collaboration
Science is a collaborative project. The knowledge and processes we call science today have grown over hundreds of years (maybe thousands) with dozens of contributors (possibly millions). Scientists themselves often work in collaboration with other experts to research various problems, and to debate and discuss their plans and projects. Not only do scientists often work in groups, but the community in general (including you and me) often need to work together to make our up minds on many kinds of scientific issues.
School science also is benefited by group work. Working and learning in groups is a great way for children to talk, share and discuss their ideas, learning from each other as well as the teacher. By having students work in small groups, quiet students have more of an opportunity to contribute and share their ideas, and the whole class can contribute to the community of learners, just like real scientists do.
Many authors and educators gladly proclaim the benefits of having children learn and practice school science in groups (Fleer and Hardy, 2001). Some good ideas for co-operative learning come from the work of Kagan (1994) with ideas such as simultaneous interaction, positive interdependence, Individual accountability and equal participation. Candler (1995) applies these ideas particularly effectively to the science curriculum, with ideas such as think / pair / share and round robin, and is well worth the time to the interested reader.
In community science the ‘peer review’ process is often used to check the effectiveness of new scientific knowledge. Educated colleagues and the public in general are free to analyse, consider, and experiment further on any claims published by scientists. This way, errors or bad ideas are hopefully caught sooner rather than later and new ideas and perspectives can improve on the ideas of others. The students in a classroom can take place in a similar ‘peer review’ process as they discuss and share ideas with each other during small group time.
Group consensus also plays a vital role in science historically and every day. Consensus occurs when the majority of those scientists involved in an issue can agree on certain things are viable or true. When new knowledge comes to light, the community of scientists will often debate it until the majority of them are convinced it is the best idea possible. Consensus is the process by which new ideas are tested and integrated into the current body of scientific knowledge, and it is not easily obtained. Consensus frequently plays a part of school science as students discuss and compare their results and conclusions.
Another important aspect of collaboration is when students communicate their ideas to others in the class, for example, through oral presentations or building posters or models. Communicating their learning in this way can help students consolidate their own understanding and challenge misconceptions they may have. It also can make useful assessments (and decorations for the classroom as well). Finally, it helps students learn from the feedback of others, and can help them have realistic expectations of scientific knowledge as being open to public debate. I strongly believe that everyone can help create, engage in the debate about, and effectively use scientific knowledge and ways of thinking in their daily lives.
Evidence based
However, group processes alone do not decide the value scientific knowledge; the most popular scientist does not always get the most votes for their idea. Scientists and science students who are making knowledge claims need to be able to give evidence for their claims from their observations and experiences in the world. Scientific claims need to be based on evidence, and it is one of the ways many scientists use to define what makes scientific knowledge ‘scientific’ (Popper, 1978). The scientific community has established thousands of protocols to strengthen the empirical support of a claim. This does not mean that all scientific ideas are true, which we will cover later, but to be considered scientific all claims must be supported by the best evidence possible.
Students engage in the evidence based nature of science when they explicitly give reasons to their explanations. One simple way to do this is by asking students ‘why do you think that?’ or ‘what happened to make you say that?’ Helping students see that their ideas need to be based on some form of evidence is a valuable skill for life long learning in science.
However, being evidence based does not guarantee accurate or truthful knowledge; even the most ‘unbiased’ of scientists will still wrestle with the issues of the influences of culture, personal bias and even mood on their work. They do, however, strive to be as objective as possible. Some of the things scientists might do to accomplish this include repeating their experiments several times, comparing their results to control groups, or using sensitive and highly accurate measuring instruments.
These ideas are all helpful in school science, as children are encouraged to give evidence based reasons for their answers in ways that others can hopefully experience. Also, a single result is rarely enough to make a knowledge claim; you should repeat your experiments and your measurements as much as practical to make solid claims in science.
It is also important to note that even with a focus on evidence based claims students will sometimes arrive at a conclusion that you see as incorrect (and so would a standardised test). May I recommend that instead of saying ‘no, that’s wrong’, another reply that might help them continue to have faith in their ability to use and create scientific knowledge could be ‘Perhaps, what makes you say that?’ or ‘Perhaps, how did you come to that conclusion?’ By suggesting conflicting evidence to their ideas, or suggesting tests they can further try, you can support their confidence as individual learners and successful creators and owners of scientific knowledge.
That being the case, sometimes students (and entire classrooms) will still come to conclusions that wouldn’t ‘pass the test’, so to speak. In situations such as these, when the accepted notion is not surfacing by itself from the analysis of evidence by the students, Volkman suggests proposing the accepted idea as a model or theory students can explore (not as the ‘right answer’ they’re supposed to be getting). He phrased it by saying ‘one theory that scientists often use to explain this situation is…’ (Abell, Smith & Volkmann, 2004). Educators such as Sandoval (2005) strongly recommend that student learning is enhanced, and engagement in the content material strengthened, when students learn to treat school science as ideas to be tested, and not concepts to be proved (or even simply as affects to be generated during ‘experiments’…)
Sometimes the teacher may not know the ‘right’ answer either. May I suggest that it is better to not know, and to admit it, than to promote a wrong idea? You can always say “I don’t know, how can we find out?” or “Hmmm, lets find out about that together”. You can use not knowing as an opportunity to model good learning; show it is safe for those with authority to not know and that they have things to learn too, even scientists and teachers.
Encouraging students to have an evidence based approach to their claims in science can be very motivating, and helps them become better learners in life and in science.
Tentative
Most people consider all the facts, opinions and ideas of science to be set in stone, but others would argue that scientific knowledge is constantly growing and changing when better explanations or new evidence arrives. The Queensland syllabus states “Scientific knowledge is a set of explanations …These explanations are tentative and continue to be modified.” (CSA science syllabus, n.d., pg. 1).
For example, in the 16th century the generally accepted scientific idea was that life could “spontaneously generate” from inanimate objects: dead meat turned into flies, frogs formed in clouds and were dropped down with the rain. However, some individuals were not convinced of this idea, and wanted to change what people thought. It took many years, and many clever experiments performed by scientists of skill and note to change people’s perceptions. Now the idea is that all life comes from living things, not dead or inanimate things (taken from Aronson, ).
This is one brief example that helps to illustrate the principle that all scientific ideas are up for review at any time, should the scientific community form consensus that a better theory has come along, or new evidence has cast doubt on the effectiveness of an older theory. This is a fundamental attribute of the nature of science (QSA, n.d.), and has been called the tentative nature of scientific knowledge (Also, ‘reversionary’ or ‘subject to change’, Lederman, 2004), though others prefer the term ‘open minded’ for more philosophical reasons (Harding and Hare, 2000). Regardless, it can still take a lot for ideas to change. Sometimes, social processes such as personal agendas or public prejudices hold up the acceptance of a better theory, and sometimes science just doesn’t have the tools or technology to test a great idea.
Tentativeness can be a part of science teaching when students are taught that all scientific knowledge is up for review, but is conditionally accepted for very good reasons; reasons which are often very evidence based. Because of this, even you and your students can one day contribute to what science knows (with lots of hard work and careful experiments!)
This can also inform the primary teacher as they strive to never be too convinced one theory or explanation is the absolute right theory because they might ignore important evidence of a better theory, or worse, stop looking for answers altogether. (And lets face it, sometimes our successful working theories are still not congruent with scientific understandings anyway, ie, the sun is a ‘ball of fire’ or ‘we breath in oxygen and breath out carbon di-oxide’). Being prepared to confront this concept of ‘no perfect answer’ can be a daunting, but rewarding, experience (MacNaughton, 2003). It could be said, with just a little literary license, that we experience the world through our senses, but we make sense of it with our minds; and science reserves the right to change it’s mind.
Perhaps too often we expect to be able to give students the ‘right’ answers in science, but is it OK to say “I think this is how it works…” or “The current explanation scientists use to explain this is…”. This is teaching science! By being conditional (or ‘tentative’) yourself and you’ll teach learners how to learn. Science is still learning, and so am I. The teacher does not have to know every science concept to be curious, and being curious is a very important principle in science.
Curiosity
If the only thing you ever do to improve your primary science curriculum is to actively encourage student to be askers of questions, then you are teaching science. Don’t ever discourage questions with ‘it just is’. Perhaps you could try ‘I don’t know… yet’ or ‘there must be a reason, lets see if we can find out?’ You’re doing science whenever you’re trying to figure out how things work. Why does the sun shine, and why do plants need it to grow? Can I grow taller? Why do some people have black hair? Where do people come from? Etc etc etc.
But science is more than encouraging students to ask questions (and in most children questions are never in short supply!) Perhaps of even greater value to their life long learning is encouraging them to find their own answers. You can say to them ‘how can you find the answer to that question?’ Often students need direction to know where to look for good information to answer their questions. By encouraging them to find their own answers it helps them find faith in their ability to be learners, and not passive receivers of understanding.
Scientists use many ways to create and use knowledge, ways your students can use every day. For example, look it up in the library or internet, ask an expert, or come up with an explanation yourself and then think of a way to test it. The next time you have a science demonstration, stop just before completing it and ask students to predict what they think will happen (Mitchell and Mitchell, 1998). Their level of interest may just astound you.
Questions are the basis of inquiry approach to teaching science (Wilson and Wing Jan, 2003). Many teachers express reluctance to working with student questions; they have many pressures to fulfil curriculum requirements, and perhaps feel students lack the background knowledge to ask researchable questions. One way around this is to take a survey of questions students have after being introduced to a new unit, and selecting the most workable to focus on. Some teachers give students the opportunity to write their questions down as they have them, in their books or on a class poster. This way, students act like scientists by creating questions, and the teacher has another valuable means of assessing student learning.
You can also have great success in teaching science by making lessons and even units of work based on questions the students have asked. Much work has been done by authors such as Fleer (2001) and Faire and Cosgrove (1988) on how this can be practically done in the school classroom. Students are often more motivated to learn when they are researching their own questions, and it is a great way to increase engagement in students (Sandoval and Reiser, 2004) and boost their confidence to becoming creators and users or knowledge, and not just receivers. Make science real by researching student questions.
Connected
Science is connected with every other aspect of the curriculum. Early maths of literacy development can be taught with science for example, while students are categorising different kinds of leaves or animals. Also, students can practice literacy skills of reading, writing, drawing tables and writing reports while preparing or presenting science reports. They can express their science ideas with pictures, art and music (D’Agostino et al, 1999, Danvers, 1995). Students can present their reports as a models, poster or even a song.
Science is also connected in that it deals with real issues that matter to you, the children, and their families. A big protest of many science students is that the science they learn in schools isn’t related to real life (Goodrum, Rennie and Hackling, 2001), which is a great pity, since science can be really ‘real’. Science isn’t just something we do in demonstrations, it is life long attitudes for learning.
For example, students can plant a garden while learning about how plants grow and what they need to live. Students can walk outside and learn about the weather, such as ways of getting warm on cold days. Students can develop ideas about chemistry while cooking or making play dough, or about measurement in seeing who is taller. And of course, students can explore their environment and be proactive agents for positive environmental change. There are many issues that require an inquiry, and scientific ways of thinking might be just what you need to help. Why watch a documentary on bugs when a upside down container with fruit left overnight will provide students with some real life examples of bugs and irreplaceable memories of science? Whenever you or your students are exploring your ideas about how the world works, talking and sharing those ideas, testing and experimenting on those ideas, you are doing science.
I’m going to repeat that point. One very important way to teach science in the school curriculum is by helping students create, express, and test their own explanations of how the world works. They can do this during any part of the day, as they explore mixing colour paints, as they make sounds together, as they play freely with their peers. They can make explicit the rules they find work for them, and when it is appropriate, test them. What more is Science than a quest to make reliable, useful rules for how the world works?
This whole ‘make and test’ model of developing scientific knowledge may be a little over simplified, but it is promoted here as a workable teaching technique for helping science learners in their life long relationship with knowledge. Science is connected to students because it helps inform their everyday life, and has an important part to play in their society and it’s decisions.
Conclusion
Science teaching is fun, and it’s a part of every day primary school curriculum whether you are aware of it or not. Whenever you try and work out how things work you’re participating in science. School science is a collaborative, evidence based activity, driven by curiosity, that is connected with students everyday life and encourages tentative yet growing understandings of the world. Cultivating your natural curiosity is a great way to ‘keep in shape’ scientifically speaking, and as you are prepared to learn and not know, and to ask questions yourself, you’re teaching science.
Everyone can teach science.
Joe
Appendix A: Some resources
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1to10/kla/science/guidelines.html
Look for the link ‘foundation elaboration’s’ and appendix A. These documents are filled with hundreds of ideas of how you can teach science in early childhood settings, and how it all fits in the five strands of the science curriculum. It is a must have for early childhood centres.
SEAR website
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/sear
A thorough Australian website focusing on assessment materials in science for the compulsory years of schooling
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/science/index.htm
A useful site with many links to lesson plans in science.
www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1to10/kla/science/index.html
Queensland studies authority science syllabus website, including modules: A definite place to visit for teachers looking to science excellence.
http://www.science.org.au/pi/index.htm
The Australian academy of science’s “Primary Investigations” website, very useful
“The Hoobs” or “Elmo’s world” – learning about learning
Great for kindy and preschool audiences. What do the Hoobs and Elmo do to create questions, and find answers to those questions?
And much much more…
References
Abell, S, K., Smith, D, C., & Volkmann, M, J. (2004). Inquiry in science teacher education. In L.B. Flick, & N.G. Lederman, (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science : implications for teaching, learning and teacher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands : Kluwer Academic.
Brown, G. H. (2006). Fabulous science ideas. The Science Education Reivew, 5, 20-26.
Bowman, B. (1998). Policy Implications for Math, science, and technology in early childhood education. Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education. Washington, DC: Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Chittenden, E., & Jones, J. (1998). Science assessment in early childhood programs. Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education: Washington, DC: Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
D’Agostino, J. (1999), Stephen Freedman; Diane Schiller; Joan Visser; Bryan Wunar The art of science Teaching Pre K - 8; Mar 1999; 29, 6; Academic Research Library pg. 60
Danvers, J. (1995). The knowing body: Art as an integrative system of knowledge. Journal of Art and Design Education, 14(3), 289 – 297.
Faire, J. & Cosgrove, M (1988) Teaching primary science. Hamilton, N.Z : Waikato Education Centre.
Fleer, M. (1995) They don’t tell the truth about the wind : K-3 science program / Carlton, Vic. : Curriculum Corporation.
Fleer, M. Hardy, T. (2001). Science for children: developing a personal approach to teaching (2nd ed) Sydney: Pearson Education
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The Status And Quality Of Teaching And Learning Of Science In Australian Schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
MacNaughton, G. (2003). The possibilities and challenges of “not knowing”: early childhood teachers’ knowledge and thinking in uncertain times. In O. N. Saracho and B. Spodex (Eds.). Studying teachers in early childhood settings. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Chapter 2, pg. 29-41.
New, (1998). Playing fair and square: Issues of equity in preschool mathematics, science, and technology. Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education. Washington, DC: Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Queensland school curriculum council. (2002) Evaluation of the Extent and Nature of Use of the Preschool Curriculum Guidelines. Retrieved May 22, 2005, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/research/qscc.html
Queensland studies authority. (N.d.) QSA Science curriculum. Retrieved June 16 2005 from;
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1to10/kla/science/syllabus.html
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students practical epistemologies and their Influence on Learning Through Inquiry. Science Education, 89 (4), 634-656.
Watters, J. & Ginns, I. (1995) Origins of, and changed in preservice teachers’ science teaching self efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco, CA.
Wilson, J. & Wing Jan, L. (2003) Focus on inquiry: a practical approach to integrated curriculum planning. Carlton : The curriculum corporation.
*Draft only* : article for comment only
by Joe Ireland.
Abstract:
This conversational article explores ways to enrich the primary science syllabus by using practical suggestions and clear explanations of Science Process Skill in Working Scientifically. Process skills, such as remembering, writing, sorting and listening are an important part of any science curriculum. But there are many more skills that add volumes to the primary science curriculum, such as questioning, observing, explaining, predicting, theorising, communicating, experimenting and much much more. Science is a pedagogically rich subject area that has a lot to contribute to the primary school curriculum.
This conversational article is written to the primary school teacher looking for ideas to enrich their primary school science curriculum. Science process skills, such as remembering, writing, sorting and listening are an important part of any science curriculum. However, too often these few skills are all the science a class has!
There are many important science skills that greatly add to the learning outcomes of the school curriculum, such as questioning, observing, explaining, predicting, theorising, communicating, experimenting and much much more. These process skills are a part of what it means to be “Working Scientifically”. Science education has moved on quite a bit since these ‘process skills’ were the whole focus of what it meant to teach science, but they still play an important and vital contemporary role in science and in the science classroom today (Carin and Bass, 2001).
The Queensland science curriculum hosts an entire page of verbs associated with working scientifically (QSA, 1998, see appendix B). By getting to know the skills that practicing scientists use, and seeing how they can be meaningfully employed in the primary science classroom, teachers can enrich and expand the repertoire of activities that make up ‘working scientifically’. More importantly, they can help students become better creators and users of scientific knowledge in the classroom and their communities.
As you read the article, I would ask you to consider these science process skills and look for ways you can explicitly include them in your teaching. You may be surprised at how much good learning you already encourage is considered ‘Working Scientifically’.
For example, consider the following scenario;
The teacher sets up a table and rolls a sealed tube forward along the table. To her feigned surprise the tube rolls back towards her. After the laughter subsides, the teacher asks: “Why did the tube do that? Can anyone think of a reason?”
Questioning
In science, there is probably no skill more important, nor attitude more helpful, than to encourage your students to be askers of questions. Most science begins with a question. Even those great discoveries that came about by accident did so only because someone eventually asked “What’s happening here?”
Modern science education owes much to the constructivist philosophy; that learning best occurs when students are guided to construct their own understanding, and not being ‘given’ the right answers by teachers (Fleer & Hardy, 2001). What this can mean, among other things, is that students are always better motivated, and often learn more, when they are researching their own questions (Abruscato, 2001). Questions form a major, even key roll in real science, and have an important roll in school science (Harwood, 2004). Many modern curricular techniques are based on the teacher choosing and initiating interest in a topic, and then helping the children develop their own questions and ways of finding answers to those questions. Teachers could design an entire unit of work around questions the students have brought up. (For example, see French, 2004 or Skamp, 1998). One useful idea that is never likely to grow old is to bring a unique object to class and have the children write all the questions they can about it. Then you can discuss ways to find answers to the questions, or choose one to work on for a unit of work.
Sometimes, however, a student might propose a question which is untestable - perhaps it is beyond the scope of classroom equipment and talent (“Can we smash an atom in class?”) In this case, you can always visit those that do have the funding, or have a fundraiser yourself. (However… while we all know primary schools are under funded in terms of science equipment anyway, most magnetrons are outside the budget of many nations…) However, you might be surprised at the cost effective and creative experiments you and the children can generate (except perhaps when smashing atoms).
The best science questions are ones that we can look to find the answer to, maybe through research or an experiment of some kind. Indeed, whether an idea is testable is one measure of whether it is considered scientific (Popper, 1972, and is one protest against the Intelligent Design theory). Science questions might be “What foods do lobsters eat?” “How do ants know when it’s daytime?” “Why does it rain?” Or even “Why is dirt brown?” In our example, the teacher can encourage students to ask questions about the roller. “Why does it return?” “Does it’s outside colour make a difference?” “What happens if you shake it?” “Does the way or direction it is rolled it effect it?” And, of course, “Why did the roller return?“
It may seem a superfluous comment to encourage question asking when young students are so naturally curious, but sometimes we all need a reminder (and sometime, it’s been so discouraged in them that they just aren’t inclined to try any more). When you are faced with questions you cannot answer, please avoid “It just is”. Perhaps better answers might be “We can find out!” “I don’t know, Yet.” Or more especially, “How can you find an answer to that question for yourself?” Indeed, If there is one thing teachers can do to enrich their primary science curriculum it would be to encourage students to ask more questions and think of ways to find, and test, their own answers.
Questions lead us in certain directions to look for answers, and learning to ask questions, and finding ways to answer them, is possibly the very essence of science itself. In the words of Dr Who (the Science fiction TV character, not the president of China) “Answers are easy, it’s asking the right questions that’s the trick.”
Observing
We are constantly observing the world through our senses of sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing. Not only can students see the roller, they can pick it up and feel its curved edges, shake it and listen to the sound, and a whole lot more. Carefully observing, and with equal care recording your observations, is an important skill in science.
However, science has a special purpose for observation; it is used only to say what you experienced, and not why it may have occurred. Knowing the distinction here is a difficult skill for children and adults alike. It requires suspending your explanation of what is happening: just say exactly what you saw/ heard/ felt etc, and not give any reason why things might behave as they do. For instance, you enter a room and smell a rose, but that doesn’t mean there is a rose near by, only that you smelt one. There could be many reasons why you smelt a rose: rose oil, perfume, hallucinations again etc. Understanding the difference between observing and explaining an observation is a challenging task!
Developing observation through senses is a great learning activity, and one that children are arguably engaged in every day. To enhance the experience, for example, teachers may set up a ‘senses centre’ with various activities for students to hear unique sounds, blindfolds to help feel unique objects (and ‘see’ them with their imaginations), and essential oils to smell unique smells. Indeed, whenever children pick up an object to explore its size, colour and shape they are observing (and perhaps that’s why everything ends up in a toddler’s mouth: taste, touch and smell all at once!)
Developing the skills to report observations is also an important skill in life and science. Students could perhaps record and share their observations using pictures to show whether the day feels hot or cold, create collages to express textures, or use magazine cuts-outs to demonstrate what certain smells remind them of.
In our example; the teacher rolled a cylindrical tube in one direction along a table and it rolled unexpectedly back. What was observed? The roller returned. Observations do not contain explanations, such as the floor is on a slope and it made the tube roll, or the tube was scared and wanted to be back in your hand. Say what, not why. The task of explaining why is the job of the next science skill.
You may be wondering why it is so important that students understand the skill of saying what they experienced, and not what it might mean or why it is so. This is because students and teachers often confuse ideas or explanations with sensory experience. They think they see a spider, so they decide it was a spider. But sensory illusions also help to illustrate that what we sense, and how we make sense of what we sense, are very different things. By making our observations separate from our explanations we realise our ideas are theories that can be tested.
Explaining (AKA ‘theorising’ or ‘Inference’)
Explanations are attempts to give reasons for the observations. All explanations have some merit, thought the most meritorious could be said to be based on their observations and not entirely on prior or intuitive beliefs[1]. Explaining helps the children explore the world with their minds as well as their senses, and is a key skill in science that might lead to the creation of theories. To encourage creative explaining, you could encourage a brain storming of ideas and explanations whenever children bring you a question, or try a think / pair / share activity to get the explaining juices flowing (Candler, 1995).
In our example, students now make suggestions as to why the roller behaves as it does. Perhaps it doesn’t like you. Perhaps there is a little mouse inside running along. Maybe it has something to do with magnets. Children are very creative in their explanations, and creativity is one of the most important attributes of great scientists (and ‘more important than knowledge’ in a quote attributed to Albert Einstein).
To further illustrate the difference between observing and inferring, for instance, a teacher walks into a room and there is a puddle of water between two children and one is holding an empty cup. One might understandably assume that they spilt the water, but this would be inferring, not observing. The observation is that there are two kids, a cup, and a puddle. What could one infer? Perhaps they found the puddle and the conscientious pair decided to try and pick it up with an empty cup?
Once they have an explanation (sometimes called a ‘theory’), your students might like to test it, and so we move on to the next science skill.
Predicting
This science skill is all about using our ideas or explanations of the world to predict what will happen. We can thus test our predictions to see if our explanations are supported by evidence. This is a very important way to know if we’ve come up with the best science ideas possible. One classic prediction experiment has students deciding whether things dropped into water will sink or float (followed by also explaining why they thought so.) Perhaps the children have a theory that popcorn actually pops simply because they are shaken around a lot. Is there a way to set up an experiment to test a prediction using that theory? Predicting is an important way to help children think out their consequences and the way the world works.
In our example, based on the explanation that “The tube’s rolling is caused by magnets” your students might predict that, “The roller is attracted to your ring / belt buckle, so if you roll it towards me it will keep rolling!”
(Observation often pops right back in about now, as the predictions are tested as accurately and fairly as possible. You’ll find that with all these aspects of working scientifically, they often interrelate and need not follow a strict linear progression.)
Predictions are a powerful way to teach. Instead of using science demonstrations to prove science ideas things next time, perhaps you can stop just before you complete it and ask students what they think will happen. Encourage them to give explanations as to why they think a certain event will occur. Then you can complete the demonstration and have them assess it in terms of their ideas. This is the basis of the Predict- Observe- Explain teaching technique of Mitchell & Mitchell (1992).
While predicting, it might be useful to remind students that it is not important whether they ‘get it right’, but whether they learn something or not. After all, what is science; creating and testing ideas or learning to agree with an expert? For instance, when doing an experiment have the children predict what they think will happen. When the results are not what some children expected, point out that the goal of science is to learn things. Ask for hands up who learnt something (all the children whose result was not what they expected, for one), and then give a big clap to the children who learnt something because learning is what science is all about.
Returning to our demonstration, Eventually, you’re going to have let the children open it up. But even when they do, seeing what is inside isn’t enough to understand how it works. Students will still need to use their imagination, creativity and past experience to understand how the roller operates when the cylinder is all closed up. In short, they need to create an explanation, or a theory, of what makes the roller return.
Theorising
After testing their prediction, students should be encouraged to express what they think this says about how the world works. Their explanations may be called a theory. Theories are like stories, explanations, or models that attempt to make sense of the complex way the world operates. Theories often involve things that aren’t directly observable, such as atoms or forces. Each theory implies certain predictions about the world can be made; thus we test our predictions, not our theories (since, for one reason, theories involve things that cannot be directly observed.)
Researchers such as Sandoval (2005) have been arguing for some time that science should be taught as models or theories to be tested (especially ones generated by the students themselves), and not as impersonal concepts to be demonstrated as correct. A powerful way to teach can be to have student’s gather their own evidence to support or refute the explanations given in textbooks or from the teacher. (As opposed to the current practice of giving students the theories and explanations, and then the tests that supposedly ‘prove’ them true). Doing this can help students come to know the nature of science better, especially if you talk openly about the processes (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman, 2000.)
If, however, students do become stuck or seem to be re-enforcing the wrong ideas, you still can choose to present the accepted scientific explanation as a theory or model for the students to test, as opposed to the answer they’re supposed to be getting. For example, ‘one theory that scientists often use to explain this situation is…’ (Abell, Smith & Volkmann, 2004).
The important point here is that scientific knowledge need not be taken for granted. Students can and should explore scientific claims and concepts for themselves, and not simply absorb them from a text book or believe them because the teacher says so (ie, Spencer, 1864). The failure to do so may be one factor that leads to disaffected learners of science who fail to see its usefulness in their everyday life, as opposed to becoming scientifically literate individuals who use their critical thinking skills to make valuable contributions to a knowledge driven society (Carin and Bass, 2001). Students in any science class can become ‘scientifically literate’.
Creating and testing theories is what science is all about, and it’s something students can do too. Set up some batteries, bulbs and wires, and after students manage to light them, challenge them to create, and test, a theory as to what is happening in the wires (ie, Abell, Smith and Volkman, 2004). Challenge students to explain the relationship between the length and period of a pendulum (eg, Carin and Bass, 2001). Teaching science as theories to be explored, rather than as concepts to be memorised, is a powerful way to enrich the primary science curriculum.
Communicating
Once students have learnt something new they have the opportunity to explain it to others. Scientists do this all the time. Students can use many different means to express their ideas. They can draw them, act them out, move their hands like the wind, imitate animal sounds with their voice, write a story about Derry the Drip and a day in the life of the water cycle. There is a large scope for creativity, and for using the arts in science, to express scientific ideas (Meador, 2003). Learning to communicate ideas clearly and informatively is a useful skill in life, and communicating ideas to others is a powerful way of helping students consolidate and monitor their own learning. Science communication traditionally, and for good reasons, also plays an important part in the summative assessment of students learning in science. (And an even larger part in the decorating of school classrooms worldwide!)
So science communicating is a great opportunity for cross-curricular activities in art, music, and language. Science reports need not be boring monologues, or even structured presentations. Drawing pictures, writing songs, putting on plays for parents, and making models are all highly valid and highly motivating means of helping children communicate their learning in science. How will you get them to discuss their shared ideas of what makes the roller return?
Experimenting
Everything we have been discussing so far forms a major part of what it means to do when we are ‘experimenting’: questioning, observing, generating explanations, testing hypothesis, forming theories, communicating our results and questioning again (but not necessarily in that order). ‘Experiments’ are not the only way to do science, but they are a very common way (for good reasons). Of course, experiments can be much more complicated things with independent variables, null hypotheses and random distributions. But there are lots of theories that you can experiment on right in your school that deal directly with the needs and experiences of the children. If someone has a theory that the moon only comes out at night (and many people do in my experience), take several days (same time every day for at least three weeks) and see if you can spot the moon during the day. Try experimenting on the theory that plants need predominantly red light for photosynthesis by growing plants in different conditions. Experiment on the theory that sedimentary rocks ‘drink’ because they are porous by comparing their density to igneous rocks (or observing them under a microscope). Test your ideas about how the world works, about the differences between boys and girls, even about ways to teach science better; the list goes on and on and on.
Important in experimenting (and often overlooked) is the notion of a “fair test”. For example, is it fair to test the theory that boys are stronger then girls with grade 2 girls V’s the grade 7 boys? Or just to be political, is it fair to test intelligence using tests designed in one group or culture in another culture that values different kinds of excellence? You see, a fair experiment will do things such as try to make all other conditions equal except the one(s) you wish to test. Consider: Is it a fair test for microbes when the agar plates from location 1 are kept in a different incubator to the agar plates from location 2? Can you be sure what you are testing, locations, or incubators…? While it may be impossible to be completely ‘fair’, it is something scientists, and good science students, understandably go to great lengths to try to be.
Another important point in experimenting is that of multiple trials, or that single examples are rarely enough to establish a knowledge claim in science. For example, imagine you and your class are trying to see which is will run a maze faster, white or black mice. How many trails does it take before you can say for sure which kind of mouse is faster? 10? 100? You decide. However, the idea is that in science that there is never enough evidence to prove a theory irrefutable beyond all doubt forever, since for one reason it is impossible to experiment on every single instance of a phenomenon (see ‘Underdetermination’, Kosso, 1992). Still, at some point we must decide that our results are reasonably sufficient to make a claim.
For this reason, all scientific ideas are up for review at any time, should the scientific community form consensus that a better theory has come along, or new evidence has cast doubt on the effectiveness of an older theory. This is a fundamental attribute of the nature of science (QSA, 1998.), and has been called the tentative nature of scientific knowledge (Also, ‘reversionary’ or ‘subject to change’, Lederman, 2004), though others prefer the term ‘open minded’ for philosophical reasons (Harding and Hare, 2000). Tentativeness can be a part of science teaching when students are taught that all scientific knowledge is up for review, but is currently accepted for very good reasons; reasons which are often very evidence based. Because of this, even you and your students can contribute to what science knows (with lots of hard work and careful experiments!), and certainly challenge the many inappropriate claims made in the name of science everyday.
I find it useful to discriminate between tests and experiments in my work, though for most practical reasons it is an unnecessary distinction. Tests are things that don’t need to have a theory or prediction at all. Whenever you start a sentence with ‘Lets see what happens when …’ you are doing a science test. Children, adults and even animals do these kinds of tests all the time, seeing what will happen when they do certain things. Try stacking blocks in a certain way. Hang some birdseed sticks in the garden and see what kinds of birds (and bugs) they attract. Swing a cat by it’s tail (Ok, don’t do that). Find out what things make shadows and the kinds of shadows that they make. Free- range testing is important in science and science education, and can lead to scientific experiments later on.
Testing can also mean using science skills and materials to learn something about specific objects and people (ie, testing for cancer, performing a scratch test in geology). The point I wish to emphasise here is unless you are investigating a theory, it may be confusing to call it ‘experimenting’.
Also, demonstrations are diverse from experiments in that they involve making a point rather than testing an idea (usually by the teacher in front of the class, but it also includes most practical activities in science classes). While these demonstrations are important for science education and certainly do have their place, sadly, this seems to be most common way (and sometimes only) way that science is taught (Fleer & Hardy, 2001). To expand of this, since experiments are used to test predictions (derived from theories) most science ‘experiments’ in schools aren’t experiments at all, but are demonstrations or ‘proofs’, even in high school (Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie, 2001).
Teaching predominantly in this way fails to challenge students intellectually, and makes the point of school science seem to be the generating of various simple effects (as opposed to creating and testing ideas, e.g. Schauble et al, cited in Sandoval 2005). This can give students the unfortunate impression that science and working scientifically have little to contribute to the decisions in everyday life. But they can, as Chinn and Malhotra (2002) state;
“All citizens need to be able to reason well about complex evidence such as evidence relating to health and medical decisions, evidence relating to social policies upon which citizens vote, or evidence relating to the best way to promote employee motivation and satisfaction. Learning an oversimplified version of scientific reasoning will not help on such real-world tasks.” (p 213)
It is important to note that not all sciences progress using this “Experimental method”, and that this is also certainly not the only valid way to do science. For instance, Lederman (2004) cites 3 general levels of scientific inquiry; Descriptive (closely observing a situation, common to anatomy and taxonomy for instance), Correlational (comparing information for patterns, common to sociology for instance), and Experimental (discussed here a creating and testing ideas about the world). Each of these ways of working scientifically make use of many of the process skills discussed so far (observing, inferring and communicating, for instance).
Learning the mental disciple of experimental science is of great value to students in schools, and helps them to become critical consumers of scientific claims in the community, and that’s an important part of what it means to be scientifically literate (Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie, 2001).
Enriching the Primary Science Curriculum
The beginning of this article included the conundrum of the returning roller, and Appendix A contains instructions and explanations of how the roller rolls. As we saw, this activity can be used to illustrate all kinds of aspects of working scientifically (such as observing, questioning, experimenting, explaining, predicting, theorising and communicating). Science itself is also much more than the process skills discussed here, but these process skills still play an important roll in the science inquiry classroom today (Carin and Bass, 2001).
There are also many other science process skills that are part of school and community science. The Australian Queensland science syllabus (QSA, 1998.) has many suggestions (See Appendix B) and divides them into three main strands: Investigating, Understanding, and Communicating. You might be able to use this as a suggestion to help you get science working in your classroom, and it may surprise you how many ideas that make up ‘working scientifically’ can be applied to other school subjects.
Please note that science, and especially school science, does not have to progress in the manner described above. What I have presented here is not a teaching approach, as the science process skills are used when they are needed in any teaching approach to make our ideas in science the best they can be. There are also many more activities beside the ‘returning roller’ that can help children learn how to work scientifically. Almost any demonstration where children can explore their own explanations of a phenomenon can help learn how to be creators and users of scientific knowledge. Everything from alka seltzer rockets, to flick flaks, to even a balloon inverted into the neck of a soft drink bottle can be used to teach working scientifically skills when student explanations and investigations are explored before teacher driven descriptions.
In conclusion, one of the most important ideas I wish to share is that science is all about creating knowledge, for students and for scientists. When students are encouraged create and test their own ideas, rather than being handed the ‘right’ answer all the time children will develop greater levels of scientific literacy and enjoy science more. Science is a great opportunity to help students learn how to learn, and to create understandings for themselves based on the processes of science; such as creating and testing theories, observing and explaining observations, and communicating conclusions with their peers.
The intent of this article has been to enrich the options for teaching science in primary schools through an examination of ideas on the process skills of science, and to make practical suggestions for including them in school. It has also been to point to other places to look for more information, and to admittedly share a small part of the enthusiasm I feel for science in schools. Science provides daily opportunities to enrich the primary school curriculum. Keep teaching, keep learning, and keep enjoying science!
Joe is a freelance science educator operating out of Brisbane. He has been teaching for over 6 years in various national and international settings. In 2005 he received his Masters in Education at QUT, where he is currently under employed as an associate lecturer of Science, Technology and Society.
A special thankyou to all who had a hand in this article, including the editorial team at SER, Felicty McArdle, Claire Christensen and Jim Watters at QUT, and most of all to my eternal wife Samantha Ireland for believing in my dreams.
I welcome responses and feedback to this article. Especially other people’s successes, frustrations and stories with the ‘returning roller’. Please visit me at www.mrjoe.com.au
Thankyou for reading my article – Joe.
Appendix A: The Returning Roller – A lesson in science skills
Focus:
This activity is designed to help students think about working scientifically. Suggestions are included to explicitly and critically analyse their creation of scientific knowledge.
Learning Outcomes:
Science and Society:
1.1 Students discuss their own thinking about natural phenomena.
D1.4 Students make generalisations from observations made during an investigation.
2.2 Students identify some ways scientists think and work.
Energy and Change:
D 1.4 “Students construct ideas about energy from playing with scientific toys.”
4.2 Students collect and present information about the transfer and transformation of energy (including potential and kinetic energy).
Preparation
Teachers should build a working model of the roller before fronting the class, and know how to make it work with some reliability. DO NOT underestimate the importance of that last sentence. There can be quite a trick to getting your roller to work reliably, and as all science teachers know, they must get their demonstrations to work for them before fronting a class with them. There are few things more defeating to a science lesson than a demonstration that don’t work.
Lesson Ideas
Invitation
Teachers can roll the roller as the article indicates, and have students suggest reasons as to why it is returning. You can try using a ‘magic click’ telling them that the roller can ‘hear’ you and magically returns. Have them think of ways to disprove your idea. (Roll it without clicking, have someone else click their fingers etc)
Point out that we are doing science by thinking of ideas and testing them. This is what practicing scientists do in the community. They may not have all the answers, but are looking for new things to learn just like your students in class today.
Exploration
Have your students practice observing by watching, listen to the roller as it is shaken, or feeling it in their hands. You might like to invite one student up to closely examine it (without opening it) and share with the class what they are experiencing. (If you have previously introduced the idea, this can be an opportunity to remind students how observing is different from explaining observations.)
Next students can be encouraged to generate explanations for the phenomenon of the ‘returning roller’, based on what they have observed. Examples might be that the desk is on a slant, or that it has something to do with magnets and paperclips (or well trained ice). Teachers can compliment student suggestions, and then ask them to generate ways to test their ideas just as practicing scientists do. (Without opening the roller up). Point out that this one way that scientists use to generate their understanding of how the world works.
Eventually, opening up the roller will be the best way to test student ideas. Remind them that this is a good way to do science (opening things up to see what they are made of), but that you need to make sure we do so safely and responsibly. Open it up to reveal the rock and rubber bands (curiously, I’ve noticed that many students ignore the rubber bands as important evidence).
Have them now try and explain how and why it works. You may like to let them pass it round and examine it. Listen to their ideas and theories of how it works. Reward science thinking and terminology, after all science is all about thinking of ideas and then thinking of ways to test them. You might like to give them a day or two, or give upper primary students the chance to try and build their own rollers before giving them the ‘formal explanation’ of how it might work.
Concept introduction
How it works
I often use this as an opportunity to show the need for imagination in science. You need to imagine what is happening inside the roller while it is operating (unless you happen to have built a transparent one).
What happens to the weight as the container is rolling around? Is it turning as the container does (It is moving along with the container, but is it turning around as well?) When it is closed, can you imagine it not turning as the container does?
So as the container turns, the rock moves but does not turn. What would this do to the rubber band? It causes the elastic band become twisted up. This twisting resists the containers turning, building up an opposing force with every twist. Eventually the rubber band begins to untwist by pushing the container in the opposite direction. And presto! The roller returns.
Why it works
One idea scientists use to explain why the rock doesn’t turn as the container does is called “Inertia”. This idea holds that objects stay in whatever state of motion they are in until a force acts on them: changing their direction, speed, or shape. For example, the tendency of all matter to not want to move if it isn’t (try pushing a stalled car), or to keep moving forever if it is (the Space Shuttle keeps moving in space and only uses its rocket engines to change direction).
So the inertia of the rock (the tendency of the rock to not turn unless it is pushed hard enough) \causes the rubber bands to become twisted as the roller turns around it. All this twisting causes the rubber bands to become stretched out, and they are pulling more and more on the rock and on the container. Eventually, in order to unstretch, they pull the container back, causing it to turn in the opposite direction. (Incidentally, they pull against the rock as well, but because of its inertia it does not spin around… usually).
Actually, both the rock and the container (and the rubber bands) have inertia, since they have mass, but the much heavier rock has much more inertia than the container, which is why the container rolls backwards and not the rock.
You can also try describing the returning roller in terms of the scientific concept of “Energy”. The kinetic energy of the original motion is transformed into elastic potential energy in the rubber bands. The tension in the rubber bands produce a force which begins to turn the container in the opposite direction, as the elastic potential energy is transformed back into kinetic energy, and the container rolls back again.
Concept Application
What other examples of inertia are there in your classroom? Can you think evidence to support the idea ‘moving things keep moving unless acted on by a force’ when so many things in our daily lives slow down without constant pushing (cars, bikes, or toys, for instance)? An idea called ‘friction’ can help here.
Can you think of ways to test the idea that “heavy things have more inertia than light things?”
How about “objects at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by a force.” Can you disprove this idea by finding any instance of something that was not moving but now is, that was NOT acted on by a force of some kind?
How does inertia help us to explain why the earth does not fall down into the sun, but keeps moving around it?
Students can build their own rollers using materials they bring to class (A good example of the technology syllabus). Can they make one larger than your demonstration? How about a transparent roller? Have them sketch out careful plans before beginning.
Finally, I have a conundrum for you: if the earth is turning completely around in only 24 hours, and it really is as big a ball as scientists say it is, then the people at the equator would be moving at around 1700 Kilometers per hour! Surely they would be squashed flat, and the wind rushing past would rip everything to pieces! Yet they can walk around the tropics as happy as can be without noticing a difference. Can you give me an explanation for this? (Earth is turning! Bah, Humbug! It certainly doesn’t feel like it is turning to me!)
Assessment Ideas
You may like to assess students on the effectiveness of their returning rollers (ie, do they return), but this may be more appropriate as a hurdle requirement.
Summative: Have students make posters or oral presentations that explains how and why the roller works, using current scientific terminology. Be sure to reward them for any effort they put into understanding their explanations (not just repeating the teachers).
Formative: Students can prepare learning journals of how they learnt about how the roller works, and how their ideas have changed as they explored and thought about it.
Building the Returning Roller
Caution:
When allowing students to construct their own rollers, safety concerns need to be taken into prior consideration. Be wary of sharp knives and snappy rubber bands. Also, students need to be persistent; the rollers can be fickle toys (relying on just the right density weight, thickness of rubber bands etc etc etc!)
Materials:
· A cylinder at least 10cm wide and 10 centimetres long… or thereabouts. I find large postal rolls do just fine! (And they come wind soft plastic ends as well).
· A small, very heavy object: a nut from an aeroplane, a solid rock, etc.
· Some strong elastic bands, but not too thick: 2mm will usually do.
· Two paperclips.
· Construction materials: sharp knife, tape, etc
· Perhaps some decoration materials: paper, paints etc.
Building the roller
1. Attach the elastic bands to the weight (being sure to leave enough slack to attach the bands to the cylinder walls next step). Some creativity is required here. You can wrap the elastic bands around the weight and secure the whole lot with a third elastic band.
2. Cut some small slits in the center of either end of the cylinder. Thread the elastic bands through, and keep them there with the paper clips. Your roller should now have a weight suspended by rubber bands inside a cylinder. It is important that the weight does not touch the sides of the container. It is important that the paperclips are fixed to the container or the rubber bands will not transfer their spin properly. (I use paper clips because the rubber bands sometimes need replacing, but you might find something that works better.)
3. Decorate to your hearts content. Well, nearly. The roller works better with smooth, round walls: cupcake holders are not conducive to this effect.
|
Bands attached to carton ends
|
Help to make it work.
· The roller usually requires some winding up ‘top away from you’ in the same direction that you intend to roll it. This can be a delicate art: you need to feel the roller just gently trying to roll back. Too much, and the elastic bands unwind by themselves as the weight is spun around wildly inside. Too little and the roller rolls away and is too ‘tired’ to return. Each roller will be an individual with their own personal requirements to get motivated.
Appendix B: Page 33 of the Queensland Science Syllabus.
Aspects of ‘working scientifically’ and their components are:
INVESTIGATING which may involve:
|
UNDERSTANDING which may involve:
|
COMMUNICATING which may involve:
|
• accessing resources
• clarifying and challenging
• collecting information
• designing and performing experiments
• designing and performing investigations
• engaging with problems
• exploring phenomena
• forecasting and backcasting
• formulating questions
• handling materials
• hypothesising
• identifying
• identifying and controlling variables
• looking for patterns and meanings
• making and judging observations
• making plans
• measuring
• playing
• predicting
• seeking reasons
• …
|
• analysing
• applying ideas and concepts
• assessing and reassessing
• constructing meaning
• creating analogies
• dealing in an orderly manner with the parts of a
complex whole
• developing possible, probable and preferred options
• drawing conclusions
• examining and evaluating
• formulating and elaborating ideas
• generalising
• inferring from data
• interpreting data
• judging credibility
• looking for alternatives
• making and judging deductions
• making and judging inductions
• making comparisons
• making links
• preparing scenarios
• recognising and analysing options
• reflecting and considering
• selecting and justifying
• suggesting
• synthesising
• using ideas, theories and principles
• …
|
• arguing a position
• clarifying ideas and concepts
• constructing and using models
• creating diagrams
• creating presentations
• creating tables and graphs
• describing
• discussing thinking
• envisioning alternative futures
• explaining ideas and decisions
• exploring and elaborating ideas
• expressing points of view
• illustrating
• improvising and performing
• listening and questioning
• negotiating
• relating
• responding and debating
• retelling and restating
• summarising and reporting
• supporting decisions
• using scientific report genres
• using scientific terminology
• …
|
From the Years 1 to 10 Science Syllabus, Queensland Studies Authority, www.qsa.qld.edu.au. Printed with permission.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N, G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International journal of Science Education. 22 (7), 665-701.
Abell, S, K., Smith, D, C., & Volkmann, M, J. (2004). Inquiry in science teacher education. In L.B. Flick, & N.G. Lederman, (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science : implications for teaching, learning and teacher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands : Kluwer Academic.
Abruscato, J. (2001). Teaching children science: a discovery approach. (5th ed.). USA: Allan and Bacon.
Candler, L. (1995). Co-operative learning and Hands on Science. California: Kagan publishing.
Carin, A. A., & Bass, J. E. (2001). Teaching science as Inquiry (9th Ed) New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
Chinn, C, A., & Malhotra, B, A. (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science education, 86(2), 175- 218.
Fleer, M. Hardy, T. (2001). Science for children: developing a personal approach to teaching (2nd ed) Sydney: Pearson Education
French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 (2004), 138–149.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The Status And Quality Of Teaching And Learning Of Science In Australian Schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Harding, P. & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasising open - Mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of research in science teaching, 37, 225.
Harwood, W. (2004). An activity model for scientific inquiry. The Science Teacher, 71(1), 44-46.
Kosso, P. (1992). Reading the book of nature : An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York : Cambridge.
Lederman, N.G. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L.B. Flick, & N.G. Lederman, (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science : implications for teaching, learning and teacher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands : Kluwer Academic.
Meador. K. S., (2003). Thinking creatively about science: Suggestions for primary teachers. Gifted Child Today; winter 2003; 26, 1; Academic Research Library pg. 25
Mitchell, J., & Mitchell, I. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. In J. R. Baird, & J. R. Northfield, (Eds.), Melbourne: The Editors.
Popper, K. (1972). The logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Skamp, K. (1998). Teaching primary science constructively (1st ed.) Harcourt Brace: New South Wales.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students practical epistemologies and their Influence on Learning Through Inquiry. Science Education, 89 (4), 634-656.
Spencer, H. (Unknown. 1864). Education: intellectual, moral, and physical. Unknown: A. L. Burt company. (QUT KG ref: 370.1 306 / A).
Queensland Studies Authority (previously the Queensland School Curriculum Council). (1999) Years 1 to 10 Science Syllabus, The State of Queensland : Brisbane, Australia. For more information write to the Queensland Studies Authority, PO Box 307, Spring Hill Australia 4004, email office@qsa.qld.edu.au, or go to www.qsa.qld.edu.au.
[1] though all explanations are, to some extent.
