Nature of science

Key ideas

• Scientists discuss their ideas with each other; they do not work in isolation.
• Scientists may explore a science idea without a precise focus.
• The process of forming an investigation may draw on the work of other scientists, for example, previously published research and ideas.

Notes

Scientists use discussion to explore their science ideas. The process of forming a science investigation is open-ended and may change through interaction with other scientists.

The process of forming an investigation may be formal, for example, through response to presentation of research at a conference, or informal, for example, by chatting with colleagues over a cup of coffee.

Teacher reflection

• How might the questions of scientists differ from the questions of students?
• How can the limited nature of students’ science ideas limit the questions that they ask? What effect can this have on student investigations?
• How important is discussion to the generation of scientists’ questions?
• In what ways can the views of other scientists influence the questions of a particular scientist?

Key ideas

• When carrying out an investigation, scientists try things out in different ways to look for patterns that will either support or discount their science ideas.

Examples

How samples are collected and how the results are recorded are influenced by the aims of the investigation.

Gradualism versus catastrophism

When the idea of sudden climate change was first proposed, there was strong opposition from scientists who understood climate change only as a gradual process. The explanation of meteor impact (and the resulting dust in the atmosphere) is now widely accepted as an alternative theory to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. The evidence did not change; an alternative theory caused a new pattern to be observed.

Notes

Both the types of investigations scientists undertake and the patterns they observe are influenced by their science ideas.

Teacher reflection

• How can cultural and political events change the science ideas that scientists hold?
• Why is it important for scientists to look for results that don’t fit the predicted pattern as well as results that do?
• How can we be sure that scientists are not ignoring important information in their observations?

Key ideas

• Scientists are members of both science communities and everyday communities. The questions they ask and the answers they seek are usually related to what is important to their communities.
• Science communities may form through a common field of research, collaborative research projects or simply through a shared work space.
• Everyday communities are created through a shared interested, for example health or conservation concerns.

Teacher reflection

• Can a scientist be completely impartial? Why or why not?
• What communities might influence scientists and how?
• Is it inappropriate for a scientist to be influenced by community groups? Why or why not?
• Should scientists be free to choose their area of research, or should they be forced to work in a particular area because that is where the need is seen to be greatest? Why?

Key ideas

• Existing science knowledge is made up of known science ideas that are supported by adequate data and accepted by the wider scientific community.

Notes

Scientists predict what will happen during an investigation based on their previous research, discussions with other scientists, and direct experience. Predictions are part of a formal process of investigation.

Teacher reflection

• Why are predictions based on existing knowledge?
• How might incomplete science knowledge affect a scientist’s predictions?
• Is it essential for scientists to make predictions? Why or why not?

Key ideas

• Scientists design a process where they can observe phenomena that will test their predictions.

Teacher reflection

• Why do scientists predict first and then design investigations based on their predictions?
• If a scientist didn’t make predictions, what might happen in an investigation?
• Can all predictions be tested by investigations? Why or why not?

Key ideas

• An approach may be understood as the type of investigation chosen to answer the question posed, for example, a field study or laboratory trial.
• A method is the formal, systematic process of carrying out an investigation. For example, in a field study using transects or quadrates, the number of samples recorded, the distance between samples, and so on.

Teacher reflection

• Why do scientists often use more than one method and/or approach in their scientific investigations?
• How do scientists decide which approaches and methods are most applicable to particular investigations?
• Can an investigation that involves only one approach and one method be considered valid? Why or why not?

Key ideas

• Adequate data can be used to create a convincing case in support of the proposed scientific explanation (when subject to peer review).

Notes

Collecting adequate data may require that the same investigation be repeated a sufficient number of times in order to reduce the likelihood of error or that different types of investigation be carried out.

In principle, any science explanation may be called into question either through a new technique that changes the quality of observation possible or in light of an alternative theory that is supported by a more convincing case.

Teacher reflection

• How do scientists decide how much data is adequate?
• If scientists gather inadequate data, what can happen?
• What might limit the amount of data that scientists can gather?
• Should scientists modify investigations to ensure that they can gather an adequate amount of data? Why or why not?
• Why might scientists take samples rather than counting or measuring everything?

Key ideas

• When reviewing the results of an investigation, scientists compare their observations with their predictions. They also consider other scientists’ explanations for what they have observed. This critical review helps them to decide what answers they may have found and what further questions need to be asked.

Notes

The result of a science investigation is not often a self-evident endpoint or a single "answer". If what is observed differs from what was predicted, scientists may need to revise their proposed explanation, approach, or investigation method. Even if what is observed is what was predicted, it may only be one step in an ongoing investigation sequence.

Teacher reflection

• Why do scientists compare their observations with their predictions?
• If scientists fail to compare their observations with their predictions, what might happen?
• When a scientist’s observations don’t support their predictions, what should the scientist’s next step be?
• Why are the views of other scientists significant?

Key ideas

• Scientific explanations do not simply emerge from observations made during an investigation. A scientific explanation proposes that there is a pattern to what is observed. The pattern that one scientist "sees" may not be apparent to another.

Teacher reflection

• What role does creativity play in science?
• Can innovative developments in science and technology occur when creativity is absent? Why or why not?
• Can advances in science occur based on creativity alone, or are other factors involved? Why?

Key ideas

How the results of an investigation are interpreted depends on a number of factors. These can include:

• the number of variables to be considered
• the sophistication of the procedure (that is, the appropriateness of the approach and method chosen)
• the quality of the data collected
• the theoretical perspective of the scientist interpreting the data.

Teacher reflection

• How can there be more than one explanation for the results of an investigation? Does at least one of the explanations have to be wrong?
• Would the ‘perfect investigation’ have only one explanation? Why or why not?
• If there is more than one explanation for the results of an investigation, should further investigations be carried out? Why or why not?

Key ideas

• A model is a representation of an idea, object, process, or system. Models are often used when phenomena are not directly observable. They enable scientists to develop and work on science ideas but are often limited representations of the "thing" itself.

Examples

A "pump" is a model often used to represent the action of a heart. A pump draws in and expels air, and a heart draws in and expels blood. A model focuses attention on the characteristics of something familiar as a means of exploring or explaining the unfamiliar.

Teacher’s notes

Models are useful ways of thinking about a science explanation but are typically selective representations used to visualise a specific characteristic of the phenomena being investigated.

For more information on models, see Teaching strategies | Teaching with models.

Teacher reflection

• When and why do scientists use models?
• What are some advantages to using models?
• Can more than one model explain a science idea? Why or why not?
• Why might a scientist use many models to help explain a science idea?

Examples

Predicting a solar or lunar eclipse can be used to support the explanation (theory) that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Teacher reflection

• Why does a correct prediction increase confidence in an explanation?
• If an explanation doesn’t correctly predict an event, is the explanation necessarily wrong? Why or why not?
• Does a correct prediction need to support an explanation for the explanation to be accepted? Why or why not?
• Do scientists always have to test their explanations by using predictions? Why or why not?

Key ideas

• Peer review involves scientists (working in the same or related fields) exploring and discussing the proposed explanation. The explanation may be accepted as science knowledge when there is general agreement that it is a valid way of thinking about the world around us.

Examples

Peer review may be initiated through the publication of research results in a recognised scientific journal or a direct response to a presentation at a conference.

A review may include replicating investigations that have contributed to the proposed explanation and comparing observations made with the published results.

Teacher reflection

• Why is peer review important for scientists?
• If a scientist has a view that is not widely supported by the science community, is the scientist necessarily wrong? Why or why not?
• What processes exist for peer review? How do scientists submit their work for review?
• Why is being published by the ‘right’ journal important for scientists?
• Does publishing new scientific explanations on the Internet ensure that the work is valid scientific knowledge? Why or why not?

Key ideas

• Opposition may be due to wider social, political, or religious convictions.

Teacher reflection

• If a new scientific explanation meets with a lot of opposition, is it more likely to be wrong? Why or why not?
• When there is opposition to a scientific explanation, how can that explanation be tested?
• Who decides if new scientific explanations are valid?
• What processes exist to ensure that we are not subjected to false scientific explanations?

Examples

Some earlier models of science systems were based on "cause and effect". More recent research supports more complex systems, recognising that many processes are not as straightforward as first thought.

A good example of this shift occurring is in genetics. Early models were based on one gene controlling the production of one protein. In the new science of protenomics, interactions of proteins in the cell can affect which genes are active and, therefore, which proteins those genes produce. This, in turn, affects all other activity in the cell. The simple cause (gene is active) and effect (protein is produced) process has become more dynamic and interactive.

Teacher reflection

• What different types of science knowledge exist?
• Why do our ideas about the value of different types of science knowledge change over time?
• Can we be sure that a science explanation will remain in its present form? Why or why not?

Key ideas

• Science knowledge relies on experimental and observational confirmation. Where data is incomplete, new or improved data may well lead to the revision of accepted science explanations.
• In situations where observations are fragmentary, it is normal for scientific ideas to be incomplete, but this is also where the opportunity for making advances may be the greatest.
• The core ideas of science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and are therefore unlikely to change in the areas in which they have been tested.

Notes

Science knowledge may change due to the development of new techniques for observing investigations (including new technologies), and also through new ways of thinking or framing the questions asked.

Teacher reflection

• Should we be suspicious when science knowledge changes? Why or why not?
• Why does science knowledge change?
• How can science knowledge be wrong?
• Can we ever rely on science knowledge, particularly on advances in science knowledge? Why or why not?
• Can scientists reinterpret existing science knowledge based on new information? Why or why not?
• Is all existing knowledge subject to change? Why or why not?
• What effects might new technology have on science knowledge?
• Why haven’t scientists gotten the answers right?

Key ideas

• Open-mindedness allows for creative insights (beyond what is already known) and enables productive collaboration with other scientists.
• Open-mindedness is the ability to suspend judgment. Open-mindedness helps scientists observe what is happening and the patterns that emerge, even when these may differ from their predictions.

Teacher reflection

• Why is it important for scientists to be open-minded?
• What role does open-mindedness play in scientific investigation?
• If scientists didn’t keep an open mind, what might the risks be?
• Can open-mindedness co-exist with critical thinking? Why or why not?

Key ideas

• New science ideas may come from lateral interpretation of already known results or investigations inspired by unexpected phenomena.

Teacher reflection

• How important is perseverance in science progress?
• Can scientists rely on creative insights alone? Why or why not?
• Should scientists ignore unexpected results? Why or why not?

Key ideas

• Science, as a shared culture, is a way of understanding the world around us. The ways other cultures perceive the world may influence what is important to the scientific community and, consequently, the evolution of new science ideas.

Teacher reflection

• Can Western knowledge and traditional knowledge coexist? Why or why not?
• Should all science investigations take traditional views into account? Why or why not?
• Is traditional knowledge wrong if science knowledge doesn’t support it? Why or why not?

Teacher reflection

• What science knowledge might students investigate?
• What factors might limit student investigations of existing knowledge? Is it possible to overcome these limitations? If so, how?
• What are some differences between student investigations and those carried out by scientists?
• When might student investigations go beyond the realm of existing science knowledge?

Notes

Students' investigations are limited by the equipment available, their existing science knowledge, and their knowledge of context.

Scientists approach an investigation with the aim of creating new science knowledge. Students are typically investigating existing science knowledge.

For more information, see comparing students’ and scientists’ approaches to science, The world of the student and the world of the scientist.

Teacher reflection

• What things can limit student investigations?
• If time is a limiting factor, how might teachers modify a student investigation?
• Is it possible to borrow or hire specialist gear?
• How can teachers support students who are frustrated by the limitations that they experience?
• Should student investigations be made more complex so that they more closely model scientific investigations? Why or why not?
• Is it realistic to expect that student investigations might closely resemble scientific investigations? Why or why not?
• How might student investigations change as students become more skilled investigators?

Notes

Collaboration is bringing diverse thinking and skills to a shared sense of purpose. By collaborating, students can develop a sense of how collaborative investigations might affect scientists’ ideas and processes.

Collaboration is not only about delegating tasks; it is an essential part of the investigation process, from formulating a question to interpreting and reporting outcomes.

Teacher reflection

• How can collaboration help students gather more data than they might on their own?
• How can teachers set up structures to help their students work together effectively?
• What forms can collaboration take? Is collaboration limited to investigations? Can discussions be considered a form of collaboration?
• How can collaboration extend beyond the classroom – for example, to other levels of the school, to other types of schools, to people outside the school, or to people from a broader range of cultural groups?

Notes

Choices about what students investigate and how they carry out their investigations may be affected by the importance of the investigation to other people (peer groups, parents, role models, siblings, other investigators, and so on).

Students should be encouraged to consider the views of others when carrying out an investigation. They may also be encouraged to consider how their own views may have been influenced by other people.

Teacher reflection

• How might other people influence students?
• How can teachers encourage their students to consider the views of others when planning an investigation?
• What sorts of working relationships can teachers promote in the classroom?

Notes

Students have different purposes for carrying out investigations in science. For example, what is important, exciting, or useful differs from student to student. The value of the investigation may also be affected by the student’s previous experiences with the idea to be explored.

Examples

Students’ motivations for carrying out an investigation may influence their attitude towards the investigation (to complete a task, get the "right" answer, explore something they are interested in).

Teacher reflection

• What does the term "personal values" mean?
• Do different cultural groups have different values? If so, what are some examples?
• What things might influence student motivation or interest in an investigation?
• Are students more likely to engage in activities when the topic is relevant to them? Why or why not?
• How much choice should teachers give their students to follow their own interests? How can teachers design or adjust investigations to tap into those interests?

Notes

Students’ attitudes towards science affect their investigations. Certain attitudes are conducive to learning in science and should be encouraged; these include:

• curiosity
• honesty (in recording and validating data)
• flexibility
• persistence
• critical mindedness
• open-mindedness
• willingness to suspend judgement
• willingness to tolerate uncertainty.

Teacher reflection

• How can students think critically as well as suspend their judgement?
• What processes can teachers use to help ensure student honesty in recording and validating data?
• How can teachers encourage student persistence?
• How can teachers appropriately channel student curiosity?

Notes

The combination, sequence, and synthesis of these skills will change depending on the purpose of the investigation.

Teacher reflection

• These skills include focusing and planning; information gathering; processing and interpreting; and reporting. Do all investigations need to contain all these skills, or can an activity focus on one particular skill, for example, processing and interpreting?
• Do some investigations better suit one specific skill? If so, what are some examples?
• How can teachers identify the skills that their students need more experience with?

Notes

An "appropriate approach" is the type of investigation that will best enable the question posed to be answered. Types of investigation include:

• fair testing
• pattern seeking
• researching
• modelling
• classifying and identifying.

See Types of investigation for more on these approaches.

Teacher reflection

• Types of investigation include fair testing, pattern seeking, researching, modelling, and classifying and identifying. How can teachers decide which approach best suits an investigation and/or their students?
• How can teachers ensure that student investigations cover the range of investigation types?
• Do you personally need more support with any particular type of investigation? If so, how can you get that support?
• How could you modify existing investigations to change the investigation approach?

Notes

Students need an understanding of when a procedure is appropriate and the steps that it involves.

Procedural concepts include:

• observing
• hypothesising
• inferring
• predicting
• knowing about the status of evidence
• generalising
• measuring
• sampling

Teacher reflection

• Procedural concepts include observing, hypothesising, inferring, predicting, knowing about the status of evidence, generalising, measuring, and sampling. How can students practise these procedures?
• Can all senses be used in the process of observing? Is it always safe to taste?
• What activities might teachers use to help their students understand the "status of evidence"?
• Consider what the term "generalise" means. What activities might allow students to generalise?

Notes

A theoretical point of view is required in order to interpret the results. Without this theoretical framework, students are unlikely to be able to engage critically with the idea being investigated or know what it is they are supposed to observe.

Teacher reflection

• What does "framing" mean in this context?
• For what reasons might students miss the point of an investigation?
• How can teachers set the scene for a particular investigation?
• Can framing sometimes limit the sorts of observations that students might anticipate? If so, how?

Notes

Unexpected results may provide an opportunity for further enquiry. For example, discussing with students what could have caused their observations to differ from what was predicted.

Teacher reflection

• What factors might affect an investigation and lead to unexpected results?
• Do unexpected results mean that the experiment was "wrong" or that the students did the "wrong thing"? Why or why not?
• How can teachers help their students change their thinking from "The experiment failed" to "The experiment showed that … is not a cause of …"?
• How might teachers and their students turn unexpected results into a new investigation?

Notes

Students' interpretations of results are limited by the classroom context. An explanation based on a single investigation is not a basis for valid scientific generalisation.

A scientific generalisation is an explanation that is understood to be widely applicable.

Teacher reflection

• How might student explanations be limited?
• Can teachers expect their students to generate full explanations? Why or why not?
• Should teachers fill the gaps in student explanations? Why or why not?
• How might teachers encourage their students to carry out further investigations to develop their explanations?

Notes

Students should be encouraged to think beyond the completion of a set classroom practical. For example, they might be encouraged to consider how the investigation could have been carried out differently or how they might investigate new questions raised by their exploration.

Teacher reflection

• Can student investigations be so thoroughly planned that there is no room for development? Why or why not?
• How can teachers encourage their students to reconsider how they run their investigations?
• How can student observations lead to further discussion? How can this discussion lead to a change in the investigation focus?
• How might students investigate new questions?