If you reply to this long (11 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
***************************************
ABSTRACT Mike Horton wrote: "I am helping to rewrite the manual for
our county science fair. The section on scientific method is the
typical 7 steps of trying to 'prove or disprove' your hypothesis. . .
. Does anybody have or know of a good treatment of good scientific
experimentation that I can paraphrase?" I think Helen Quinn's (2009)
Physics Today essay "What is science?" is one of the best
explanations of science that I've seen. Especially relevant to
Horton's concern is Quinn's statement: "Theories and models develop
over time. Based on data, they undergo a long-term process of testing
and refinement before becoming accepted scientific explanations or
tools in a given domain. Contrast that with the usual description of
the scientific method, which reduces continuous and iterative theory
building to the idea that one makes and tests hypotheses."
***************************************
Michael Horton (2009), in his Phys-L post "Scientific Method," wrote:
"I am helping to rewrite the manual for our county science fair. The
section on scientific method is the typical 7 steps of trying to
'prove or disprove' your hypothesis. I volunteered to rewrite this
section and do not want to start from scratch. Does anybody have or
know of a good treatment of good scientific experimentation that I
can paraphrase?
To which Wes Davis (2009) responded: "Your topic is addressed in this
month's Physics Today in an article by Helen Quinn."
I think Helen Quinn's (2009) essay "What is science?" is one of the
best explanations of science that I've seen.
In a recent post "Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?
Reply to Eubanks" [Hake (2009c)], mercifully withheld from Phys-L, I
quoted Quinn as follows [bracketed by lines "QQQQQ. . . . ."]:
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
"[WHAT IS SCIENCE?]. . . . . science is a process, based on
interpretation of experimental or observational data using models and
theories, within a tightly constrained logical structure. The
constraints arise from needing a logically self-consistent
explanation of multiple phenomena. Any apparent contradiction between
different theories or models, between evidence and theory, or between
different sources of evidence must be examined and resolved. Asking
questions is a big part of doing science, and choosing to pursue
answers to the more compelling and productive ones helps shape a
given field. . . . . . Theories and models develop over time. Based
on data, they undergo a long-term process of testing and refinement
before becoming accepted scientific explanations or tools in a given
domain. CONTRAST THAT WITH THE USUAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SCIENTIFIC
METHOD, WHICH REDUCES CONTINUOUS AND ITERATIVE THEORY BUILDING TO THE
IDEA THAT ONE MAKES AND TESTS HYPOTHESES. [My CAPS.] The use of a
broad theoretical framework within which each hypothesis must fit,
and that gets refined by each test, is generally lacking in the
textbook account.. . . . . key features of the process of science -
questioning, building theories, resolving contradictions, and seeking
data to test ideas - are common to all natural science." What is
learned in one area often has application in another. That
commonality is frequently hidden as students learn science."
Helen Quinn (2009), theoretical particle physicist and former president of
the American Physical Society.
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Quinn ends her essay with:
"Over time, the network of theories developed for separate domains
has become deeply interconnected. In much of today's research,
physics cannot be separated from chemistry or biology or Earth
science. The separate threads weave together to form a tapestry, all
the richer for the multiplicity of its details and approaches. The
process is certainly messy but unquestionably powerful. SCIENTISTS
AND SCIENCE TEACHERS NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF COMMUNICATING BOTH
ASPECTS." [My CAPS.]"
Note that there's nothing in Quinn's explanation of science that
would prohibit a "science of education," regarded as (a) an oxymoron
by Gerald Bracey (2009), a (b) a non-oxymoron by Hake (2009a,b,c).
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands.
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com/>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
A famous curmudgeon named Bracey,
Thought a science of ed was cracy,
Each student's sentient
And has her own penchant
So science won't work - prima facie.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Richard Hake (2009b)
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Bracey, G. 2009a. "Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality." Educational
Research Service, publisher's information at
<http://www.ers.org/CATALOG/description.phtml?II=WS-0760>: "Are
America's schools broken? 'Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality'
seeks to address misconceptions about America's schools by taking on
the credo 'what can be measured matters.' To the contrary, Dr. Bracey
makes a persuasive case that much of what matters cannot be assessed
on a multiple choice test.. . .[I dispute this in Hake (2009a,b,c)].
. . . The challenge for educators is to deal effectively with an
incomplete accountability system - while creating a broader
understanding of successful schools and teachers. School leaders must
work to define, maintain, and increase essential skills that may not
be measured in today's accountability plans." Amazon.com information
at <http://tinyurl.com/ngulhm>.
Hake, R.R. 2009b. "Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?
Reply To Bracey," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://tinyurl.com/kmrse2>. Post of 11 Jul 2009 16:04:43-0700 to
AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract only was also transmitted to
various discussion lists, mercifully omitting physics discussion
lists except for PhysLrnR.
Hake, R.R. 2009c. "Is Scientifically-based Education an Oxymoron?
Reply to Eubanks," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://tinyurl.com/mjb3oq>. Post of 14 Jul 2009 16:22:55-0700 to
AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract only was (a) placed online at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-scientifically-based-education_14.html>
with a provision for comments; (b) transmitted to various discussion
lists, mercifully omitting physics discussion lists except for
PhysLrnR.