Rumor around here is that hypothesis testing as "the scientific method"
originated with the biologists, partly as a way to move them away from being
nothing more than taxonomists. In order for biology to gain the scientific
stature of chemistry and physics they needed to do more experiments, create
more theories, and do more experiments to substantiate the theories.
When it comes to science fair, in many schools the first exposure to science
fair occurs when the students are taking biology. Therefore if the local
biology teacher believes the scientific method *is* forming a hypothesis,
testing it, and verifying/rejecting it, then the science fair in that school
is going to have that slant.
For many years, science fair in the local school in Bluffton began in 8th
grade, and the biology teacher in charge was adamant that there had to be a
hypothesis that was confirmed or rejected. I judged for many years, and
judges were told that it was not possible to give a superior grade to any
project that did not have a formal hypothesis with a conclusion that
explicitly supported or rejected the hypothesis. Some of us fought him on
this, and pointed out that the official science fair rules contain no such
stipulation. Some of us therefore gave superiors to projects that did not
have a hypothesis, or did not conclude with a statement of support or
rejection. We discovered that this teacher would later change the scores
given by the judges if the judges gave a high grade to a project that didn't
conform to his definition of "scientific method."
I also occasionally served as a judge in the district science fair. The
people in charge at that level did it correctly, and during the judges
meeting before judging began they specifically stated we were not allowed to
lower the score of a project simply on the basis of not following the
hypothesis, testing, support/reject pattern. They stated that this is not
the definition of scientific method stipulated in science fair rules.
Nonetheless, I often heard that my physical-science colleagues who were
paired with some older biologists for judging had multiple arguments with
their judging partners because their partners were indeed giving low scores
if the hypothesis, etc. method was not followed.
Perhaps my experience is anecdotal, but it has been reinforced by many years
of observation.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
1 University Drive
Bluffton, OH 45817
419.358.3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu