For generations, the scientific method has been the “go to” method for teaching real science in the classroom. But what it has really done, is take out the problem solving and thinking processes that are at the heart of science exploration. In this episode we will explore the scientific method’s flaws and discuss better methods to help our students understand science for the real world.
We have already talked on previous episodes about science learning and how there needs to be a bigger push for thinking and problem solving over memorizing. One of the best things (in my opinion) that all teachers can do to support this concept is to DITCH the scientific method. I know this might upset some people but I ask that you hear me out on this so keep listening.
The scientific method has 3 major flaws:
It encourages the idea of a linear method. That one process must come before another and to do any of the steps out of order is wrong. It does not represent how science is done in the real world because it leaves no room for further questioning or improvement of methodologies. Think about labs that you did in middle or high school. Unless you had an exceptional teacher or were in an advanced class, chances are that you did “canned” or “cookie cutter” labs. The teacher gave you the question and the background knowledge, you followed the steps and you collected your data. With the exception of possibly having a class discussion or answering some questions at the end of the lab, there is little to no thinking or problem solving involved here. While labs like this do have a place in the classroom, they should not be the only type of activity that your students do.
It down plays the reality that learning is a struggle and that sometimes there is not ONE right answer. When students are given a canned lab or a lab where they are expected to get one answer, this really downplays the need for students to not only think and problem solve but it also leaves out an important scientific element, augmentation. Allowing students to discuss various claims and see other points of view, gives them tools that they need to be a well rounded, scientifically literate person.
It does not show the connection across other disciplines. For many years STEM has been all the rage. Everyone and anyone is doing STEM in their classroom but are they really doing STEM? (future episode on that later) True STEM allows students to see the connection of science across disciplines and to apply what they are discovering to other areas of their life. There is a reason the “S” is first in STEM and it's not because it sounds good. Science concepts are essential to understanding the world around us.
So if you have been teaching the scientific method for years, what do you do now? The simple answer is follow the NGSS Science and Engineering Practices.
There are eight Science and Engineering Practices:
Asking Questions and Defining Problems
Developing and Using Models
Planning and Carrying Out Investigations
Analyzing and Interpreting Data
Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking
Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions
Engaging in an Argument From Evidence
Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information
Erin Sadler has a great section on her website that shows them. Here is the link.
Switching from the “Scientific Method” to the SEP will make a huge difference in your classroom and in your students. It is not an easy switch so let me offer you my best advice for getting started with the SEPs.
Don’t try to teach all of the practices at one time. Choose one or two and start with those. I suggest starting with “Asking Questions and Defining Problems” OR “Analyzing and Interpreting Data”
Don’t make an entire unit on the SEPs. Introduce them in the context of your content through out the year.
Not use the practices for “sensemaking” aka “giving students authentic opportunities to actively make sense of the world around” them creating real life, engaging science learning. Check out NSTAs sensemaking resources.
Don’t take my word for it! Erin Sadler had these on her website and I loved reading them!
Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modeling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115-130. Full Article.
Kind, P., & Osborne, J. (2017). Styles of scientific reasoning: a cultural rationale for science education?. Science Education, 101(1), 8-31. Full Article.
Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 157-175. Full Article.
McNeill, K. L., & Martin, D. M. (2011). Claims, evidence, and reasoning. Science and Children, 48(8), 52. Full Article.
National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. PDF Version.
Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: The impact of preservice instruction on teachers’ understandings of model-based inquiry. American educational research journal, 43(4), 783-835. Full Article.