Te Kete Ipurangi Navigation:

Te Kete Ipurangi
Communities
Schools

Te Kete Ipurangi user options:


You are here:

Teacher suggestions: Understanding about science

Achievement aim: Students will learn about science as a knowledge system: the features of scientific knowledge and the processes by which it is developed; and learn about the ways in which the work of scientists interacts with society.

Exploring science ideas, forming scientific explanations, science knowledge and the culture of science are discussed here. Each theme is expanded with an explanation, examples, and questions for teacher reflection.

For teaching activities related to Understanding about Science go to the  Nature of Science teaching activities section.

Exploring science ideas

Scientists turn their ideas into questions for investigation

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, chatting to 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?

Scientists’ observations are influenced by their science ideas

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, is influenced by the aims of the investigation.

Gradualism versus catastrophism:
When the idea of a 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?

Scientists’ investigations are influenced by their communities

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?

Scientists’ predictions are based on their existing science knowledge

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, discussion 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?

Scientists design investigations to test their predictions

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?

Many different approaches and methods are used to build scientific investigations

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?

When scientists carry out investigations they aim to collect adequate data

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 are 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?

Scientists think critically about the results of their investigations

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 single ‘answer’. If what is observed differs to 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 failed 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?

Forming scientific explanations

Scientific explanations may involve creative insights

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?

There may be more than one explanation for the results of an investigation

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, 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?

Scientific explanations may be in the form of a model

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 of 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?

When an explanation correctly predicts an event, confidence in the explanation as science knowledge is increased

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?

Science knowledge

Scientific explanations must withstand peer review before being accepted as science knowledge

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 publication of research results in a recognised scientific journal or direct response to a presentation at a conference.

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?

New scientific explanations often meet opposition from other individuals and groups

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?

Over time, the types of science knowledge that are valued change

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?

All science knowledge is, in principle, subject to change

Key ideas

  • Science knowledge relies on experimental and observational confirmation. Where data is incomplete, new or improved data may well lead to 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 got the answers right?

The culture of science

Open-mindedness is important to the culture of science

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 to 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?

Scientific progress comes from logical and systematic work, and also through creative insights

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?

Science interacts with other cultures

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 co-exist? 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?

Footer: