Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Science Fair





On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Zach Wolff wrote:

My personal rules for science are threefold: 1) create fun/interest, 2)
teach something, 3) don't teach anything WRONG. You'll notice that
explaining EVERYTHING is nowhere on the list.

Good points.

Several others have listed values of science fairs, often referencing back
to something I said in my earlier post which expressed some reservations
about what is done in science fairs. Some seem not to have gotten my
intent. I wasn't criticizing everything which is done in such fairs, nor
the motivations and learning potential of them. But I was pointing out,
from experience, that *as practiced* they miss opportunities and have
significant downside, as one can say about any activities which go on in
the schools.

I had said:

Having judged science fairs in my mis-spent youth, I am rather
unconvinced that they are operated in a way which promotes "scientific
method" (whatever that is).

Note, I am specifically criticizing "how they are operated", and the
assertion that they promote scientific method. Also, my critical comments
had two separate aspects: (1) Elementary school fairs, which allow
students to do projects ill-suited to that level, and (2) high school
fairs, in which more sophisticated experiments can be done, but are often
done badly without proper controls, appropriate analysis methods, and (in
some cases) blind and double-blind protocols. I'm not talking about
Nobel-Prize-worthy experiments here, but straightforward, simple
experiments.

I know you said 6th grade. That's a bit early to get sophisticated about
these things, too early to expect any meaningful understanding of the
"scientific method". What I'm questioning is whether *these* activites,
as performed, are even appropriate for this level. Aren't there more
valuable and "cleaner" things 6th graders could be doing, such as
collecting data, learning how to make graphs of data, and drawing some
conclusions from the patterns found in data? Perhaps hypothesis-testing
could come later, especially if it involves experiments with lots of
variables, some difficult or impossible to control.

By "later" I meant high school level.

My experience as judge and coordinator of judges was at the high school
level fairs.

But I was gentle in my criticism of how these fairs are in actual
practice. I could have said more, much more. Let's see how many negative
things I can list about science fairs.

1) Too many judges go for glitz and complexity, and weigh slick
presentation too highly.

2) Too many projects show no originality at all, but are clearly gotten
from books of "Winning Science Fair Projects" readily available, while
other projects are entirely original, but fare badly with judges who don't
know (or care about) the difference.

3) Students with well-off parents with college degrees, and those with
parents who are in a profession, benefit greatly from parental help.
Students from poor families, or incomplete families, are at a
disadvantage. Some parents spend time, buy materials, obtain books, and
supply key ideas. Other students don't have that advantage. Of course,
this is true with all aspects of the school experience. This may be
unavoidable, but it is unfair. Sure, I know, *life* is unfair. I felt this
particular unfairness in school keenly when I was a student (having farmer
parents, neither of whom had completed high school, only one supportive of
education).

4) Some judges are frankly susceptible to pressure. I had several cases
where school administrators pressured judges to give "special attention"
to projects from children of other administrators, school board members,
or important community leaders (small towns). Fortunately the judges are
generally from colleges, and most are not vulnerable to pressure. But some
judges have ex-students who are administrators or teachers involved in the
fairs. After all, most of the judges are people who teach prospective
teachers. The ed-biz community tends to be insular, and there's a lot of
academic inbreeding in certain states, particularly in rural areas. We see
this a lot in rural central Pennsylvania.

5) I always weighed highly what students said about their own projects,
and asked appropriate questions to find out how much the student knew
about it and how much was due to "help" from others. Some could glibly
spout a prepared spiel, but broke down when simple questions (which could
be simply answered) were asked, and it wasn't just "stage fright". I also
paid close attention to what the experimenter claimed were the conclusions
from the project and how those conclusions were justified.

6) I am unimpressed with high-sounding claims about "teaching scientific
method". It's vastly overrated. Someone wisely said that scientific method
is not a set of rules, but is "doing one's damndest with one's mind". Many
high school science books give a set of rules for "the scientific method"
even with numbers attached. Balderdash! One rule, usually no 1, is "frame
a hypothesis". Is this how real science is done? Seldom, certainly not
always. Oh, there may be hypotheses in one's mind before doing each test,
but what I'm saying that the process of investigation and discovery are
not so cut-and-dried and formalized as these textbooks lead one to
believe. The emphasis is misplaced. There ought to be more emphasis on how
one collects data in an unbiased manner, controls and isolates variables,
avoids experimenter influences, and interprets results to avoid mistaken
or incomplete interpretations.

I swear I will someday write up some case histories from history of
science, and ask "Explain in this case how the scientist was consciously
or unconsciously using scientific method." I might start with the
discovery and investigation of X-rays, then take up the discovery and
investigation of N-rays, just to see if there's any significant
identifiable difference. Descartes' theories of matter and motion are
worth a look, compared to Newton's. Oh, yes, Newton's corpuscular theory
of light, cold fusion, phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether...

7) The fairs are misnamed. They should be called "Science and Technology"
fairs, for many projects I've seen are more technology than science. The
distinction is important enough that we should blur it. What can you say
about the student who builds a Kelvin water-dropper (from plans in a book)
and hasn't a clue how it works. Also, they necessarily exclude one
important, but essential, part of science, that of the theoretician, who
may never set foot in a laboratory except as a visitor. The fairs give the
false impression that all science is lab experimentation.

8) How does one weigh originality, skillful execution, insightful
interpretation, resourcefulness, and that wonderful ability some have of
getting the most from the least (drawing meaningful and important
conclusions from simple materials)? How do you weigh an experiment in
which someone uses a computer interface for data collection against an
elegant little project made of simple everyday materials and home-built
measuring devices by a clever student who has no access to a computer and
knows nothing about using them? I tend to favor the latter, but in this
high-tech world, that student might find difficulty getting a job.

Lastly, many science-fair projects are original, well-executed, and play
an important role in launching a student toward a career in science or
technology. Most of the others are seen by students as a requirement:
"just another project" of many others in the cluttered curriculum. But
that's true of most anything else that happens in schools. A small
minority benefits greatly, the others go through the motions. And no
matter how we try to de-emphasize it, there's a competitive aspect to such
activities, and an inherent unfairness in evaluation. Again, that's true
of all aspects of the educational process (and of life), and I know no way
to eliminate it, so don't ask.

-- Donald

......................................................................
Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Professor of Physics FAX: 717-893-2048
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745
dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek
......................................................................