We teach kids only half the scientific method
The vigilant folks at the CO2 Coalition have been saying we are no longer teaching the scientific method in public school science education classes.
This puzzled me because the new rules for science education claim to teach kids to think like scientists. I figured the kids would be awash with scientific method.
I was wrong. With the help of some Coalition experts, I investigated this strange situation and here are my basic findings.
In a nutshell, which is explained more fully below, only the happy half of the scientific method is being taught. This is the fun formulation of possible hypotheses and models that might explain what we observe.
The hard half, where these tentative explanations get evaluated and likely fail, is not taught.
Now, let’s look at it in some detail. It is all about what are called “standards” which are actually State regulations saying what topics will be taught at each grade level.
About two decades ago, there began a push for national standards because while most states taught the same topics, they were often in different grades, which created problems –textbooks, for example.
The Feds paid the States to adopt Common Core standards in math and English, but they punted science to the National Academy of Sciences. Agencies often did this with science issues.
In 2012, the NAS produced its blueprint for science standards — “A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas”, which is often simply called the Framework.
A bunch of State people then formed a huge working group that wrote standards to fit the Framework. These are called the “Next Generation Science Standards,” or NGSS for short.
Today, 20 States have officially adopted the NGSS, while another 29 are reported to have standards that are based on the Framework. (The sole holdout is Florida.)
The Framework and NGSS are very different from the pre-existing State science standards. These older standards taught scientific knowledge, basically the fundamental facts that underlie each of the primary scientific areas. Electricity, cell structure, the solar system, and stuff like that.
Some of this is still taught as the Core Ideas, plus there are Crosscutting Concepts like causality. But the method is what is called Practices. These are supposed to be how scientists work, plus they have added engineering. Students do projects instead of learning facts.
Here are the listed practices from the Framework (and the NGSS):
1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)
2. Developing and using models
3. Planning and carrying out investigations
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering)
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
Note that the list basically is sequential. It ends with formulating, arguing for, and communicating explanations.
There is nothing about testing, evaluating, or criticizing these explanations. But this sort of critical evaluation is the essence of science. It sets science apart from unconstrained belief. This is the very heart of the scientific method, so the CO2 Coalition is dead right.
Then, it gets very puzzling because the Framework actually presents evaluation as a central activity. The Practices list is Box 3.1 in the Framework. Just three pages later, we find Figure 3.1 which looks to be a diagram version and is labeled “The three spheres of activity for scientists and engineers.”
The central sphere is labeled “Evaluating” and lists “ARGUE, CRITIQUE, and ANALYZE” as its activities. There is an arrow pointing directly to “FORMULATE HYPOTHESES” under the heading “Developing Explanations.”
I have no idea why evaluating proposed explanations (and models) was not included in the list of practices. Perhaps they simply wanted to make science fun by avoiding the unpleasant part. After all, progressives are often against grading students and especially against failing them.
But whatever the reason, the Framework and NGSS only teach the happy half of the scientific method. The crucial part where hypothesis meets reality is not there. So, they are actually failing to teach how scientists think and work.
I propose a simple fix taken right from the Framework. The NGSS and the States should simply add this activity to the list:
“Activity 9: Proposed models and explanations will be evaluated using analysis, critique, and argument from evidence.”
Now we just have to get this out to the 49 States.
See more here Cfact. org
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
Imagine that. No guessing the real reason for reducing science to a propaganda program.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
This article is reasonably brief so you should take time to read it and critically try to understand what the author wrote. For what is critically important is what each and every reader concludes. And if you do not plan to possibly act upon any conclusion you make, you should not waste your time reading any PSI article just for entertainment purposes. For most authors have a serious purpose.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Just to be complete, anybody who wishes to be a ‘scientist’ can allways apply themselves to it without other’s input. It isn’t magic.
Scientist is just a label. There are plenty that can qualify for the label by own efforts that don’t have the magic piece of paper to ‘prove’ it…
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
How does one do SCIENCE? For I have trouble understanding your Comment.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Instead of just agreeing, follow a method others can follow to obtain the same result. That’s how science works Jerry. Surely you know that?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
To start the ball rolling doesn’t some one give a detailed description of what they have done and the results which they observed? I’ve never read you doing this. Did I miss your comment?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
I started the ball rolling, Jerry. I knew my comment would trigger you.
“I’ve never read you doing this”
Despite your articles, I never read you doing it either.
I’ve pointed out that the ‘back yard scientist’ exists. You missed that did you?
These people conduct science for themselves, for their own ends, own uses. You fell into the trap of thinking that science is some grandiose undertaking only for the big boys, or those hoping to make a name for themselves – the chosen ones? And boy, don’t we know who they are.
Don’t try to paint me in a light that does me no justice when you know better.
There are several ‘species’ of scientist, not just the one you are part of.
There are those that do due diligence and pass all their exams, get there paper and hey, I’m a scientist! It stops there, and they never gain more, relying on what they were taught, or read in books. Science is continual learning, not what somebody else says is true.
There are others that get their final result, but are not satisfied with that. They may go on to be world renowned people, and it is these that need to document everything, just so they will be taken seriously by people like you. It doesn’t really matter, because there are others who will notice the work of this type and realize they have a real force to be reckoned with in hand.
Another type, the type you like to scorn, is the ‘back yard scientist’ as I call them. Mainly doing things for their own private use, they have no need of all the trappings other types must endure. That being the case, the method is just as scientific.
In my case I’m experimenting with small water pumps. I know the flow resistance is important as well as the head of water the pump can generate. It’s for a project of my own. I know what I’m doing and I see the project will succeed. It is totally ‘hands on’ by practical experimentation. No documents needed.
I wish to build a sound to light. This relies on splitting an audio signal into audio bands that then light a lamp, LED, what have you.
I can take the pre-set route and use bass/mid/ treble, but that won’t cut it for me. I want a particular out come, and I don’t want endless calculations to achieve that. To this end, I constructed a front-end, an interface that will allow me to see the waveforms on screen in real time so I can adjust as I go to get exactly what I want.
This is the difference between my first, and my third example of a scientist as described earlier.
Too many these days think science is about gratifying ones-self in the eyes of others. This is why the whole area is a laughing stock. Before scientists, there were tinkerers and experimenters. Glorify those two other types with a piece of paper and you get a scientist. The title matters not, what the person does with their skill and learned knowledge is what truly matters…
Reply
Howdy
| #
In regard to the ‘front-end’, this is simply an impedance matching/protective circuit that allows me to use any computer or laptop via USB as an oscilloscope at audio frequencies.
Getting it right in real time, as opposed to continually tweaking things by calculation. Yes, I could buy an actual oscilloscope, but these cost real money I don’t have, plus, where’s the fun in that?
My interface cost me the price of a potentiometer, with the rest coming from a defunct CD-ROM as the housing, and my ‘junk box’ components.
Reply