The world of the student and the world of the scientist
This resource shows how teachers can mediate between the student's and the scientist's world. It provides examples of areas of contrast and comparison between scientists’ work and students’ work.
About this resource
Students need to understand, at some level, the complexities of working science so they can draw on that understanding for socio-scientific decision-making in adult life.
A teacher’s role is to help students learn where the products of science originate and make certain they understand how those products came into being as specific types of knowledge.
This resource provides examples of areas of comparison between students’ and scientists’ work.
The world of the student and the world of the scientist
Mātauranga Māori
Scientists are recognising the value of Māori knowledge, particularly that concerned with the natural world and ecology. Collaboration with hapū and iwi is becoming an important part of environmental science as we all endeavour to make our environment sustainable.
Mātauranga Maori is knowledge – knowing about things (such as preparing poisonous karaka berries for eating). Science is about finding out why and how things happen (such as why and how karaka berries are poisonous and how preparation removes the poison).
Mātauranga Māori takes many forms of knowledge, including environmental knowledge and traditional cultural practice. It is a knowledge base in its own right. It is Māori knowledge, including values and culture. It is different from modern science. Mātauranga Māori belongs to iwi and should remain under Māori control. Mātauranga Maori is taonga (a treasure) and, as such, should be protected.
The teacher is the mediator between the world of the student and the world of the scientist.
Your role as the teacher is to help students learn where the products of science originate. Make certain they understand how those products came into being as specific types of knowledge.
You need to simulate, as realistically as possible, the things scientists do.
Students need to understand, at some level, the complexities of working science (what scientists do) so they can draw on that understanding for socio-scientific decision-making in adult life.
Some students develop a sufficiently keen interest in science to extend investigations into questions of their own choosing. Others, whose only personal experience of "doing" science takes place in core curriculum classes, will most likely take into adult life quite different images of science than the more actively-engaged students.
The following are examples of areas of comparison between the scientists' work and students’. These are necessarily broad generalisations.
The areas of comparison are:
- perceptions of purpose
- starting points
- the planning process
- actions undertaken
- making meaning
- when it doesn't work
Scientists believe their purpose is to contribute to new knowledge through scientific inquiries. They address authentic questions and have both an intellectual and an emotional stake in the answers they generate.
Regarding purpose, students may hope to just complete the task and "look busy".
Students often follow a "recipe" for practical work, and this may lead to the belief that scientists already know what will happen. Thus, they might use experiments to confirm their expectations (unless they make a mistake in the design or in carrying out the process).
Starting points for scientists are based on knowledge, experience, and skills.
Scientists have deep knowledge of their field, of conflicting theories, of previous investigations (their own and others'), and of multiple possibilities for interpreting their evidence.
Scientists are skilled in their use of instruments and materials.
Students usually start with a beginner's knowledge and understanding.
They may have a beginner’s knowledge of the basic theory relevant to the investigation.
They may have little experience in:
- managing the relevant variables
- recognising what is happening
- using measuring and observing tools and conventions.
Students are unlikely to have knowledge or experience deeply connected to either the relevant theory in the field of enquiry or to previous similar experiences.
Scientists bring to the task their sense of purpose, urgency of their questions, and deep knowledge of the field. Planning is often intellectually and practically challenging and compelling.
Regarding the planning process, scientists may:
- draw on the work of their peers
- debate, argue, or challenge explanations and evidence
- use a range of trials and detailed theoretical justification before deciding how to control variables
- take much longer to devise a robust plan than it takes to carry out the final investigation.
For students, the planning process may be a novel concept. Generally, they prefer to "get on with it" rather than spend time planning.
When undertaking an investigation, even a simple one, students often struggle to:
- make sense of what is being asked of them
- formulate hypotheses
- undertake anticipatory planning.
Scientists take whatever actions they perceive will maximise their chances of finding answers that will be convincing, both to themselves and to their peers.
Scientists aim for a robust result, and, if necessary, rethink, adapt, and modify plans as the investigation unfolds.
For students, on-going sequences of exploration are often impractical in the school situation, so each practical experience may have to stand alone.
Scientists recognise that the data gathered may not make immediate sense. They are aware that making meaning may require an understanding of the theory behind the design of the data-gathering instrument.
Even apparently "straight-forward" evidence may be fiercely debated as to its meaning, depending on the theory used to interpret it.
Students may assume that the correct meaning of scientific data will be obvious after doing the experiment. (School science experiments are typically designed to produce "evidence’" whose meaning seems immediately apparent and easy to interpret.)
Scientists use their deep experience of the field to help rationalise the most appropriate of a range of responses to anomalous data – findings that do not fit the hypothesised pattern.
When it "doesn't work", scientists may:
- discount or ignore anomalous data
- hold anomalous data in abeyance
- make minor changes to the theoretical basis of the design
- change their theory as a result of what they find.
Students tend to associate anomalous data with mistakes, with incomplete evidence, and with missing evidence.
Students may think that scientists use their personal opinions to decide which data to accept or reject. Such thinking may lead them to rely on their own opinions when they are making meaning.
Reference
Hipkins, R. and Booker, F. (2002). "You can’t investigate in a vacuum". Set: Research Information for Teachers, 3.