Science Online navigation
-
- Science in the NZ Curriculum
- Science capabilities for citizenship
- Nature of science
- Teaching science
- Teaching resources
- Science at work in the world
- Newsletters
Connected 2 2006
(PDF 288 KB)
This resource illustrates how a mathematics statistical investigation can be used to provide opportunities for students to strengthen their capability to critique evidence in the context of science.
The Nature of Science Strand
Aims | Achievement objectives relevant to this resource |
---|---|
Investigating in science Carry out scientific investigations using a variety of approaches: classifying and identifying, pattern seeking, exploring, investigating models, fair testing, making things or developing systems. | L1 & 2: Extend their experiences and personal explanations of the natural world through exploration, play, asking questions, and discussing simple models. L3 & 4: Build on prior experiences, working together to share and examine their own and others’ knowledge. |
Living World
Aims | Achievement objectives relevant to this resource |
---|---|
Life processes Understand the processes of life and appreciate the diversity of living things. | L1 & 2: Recognise that all living things have certain requirements so they can stay alive. L3 & 4: Recognise that there are life processes common to all living things and that these occur in different ways. |
Students critique their data.
This story is about the data collected by a class about the lifespan of their pets, and the ensuing discussion about what the data could tell them and what it couldn't, and how it can be reorganised to tell a different story.
The story itself gives plenty of pointers for the sorts of questions to ask students. The Notes for Teachers that accompany this Connected booklet clarify some of the key statistical ideas.
Adapting the resource
After reading and discussing the story, complete an additional activity to check students' capability to critique data.
Provide some statements related to the data in the story (see table below). Ask students:
The table below provides:
Statement | Response | Possible justification | What else do we need to know? |
---|---|---|---|
Cats are most likely to die from being run over on the road. | Can’t tell | Although one child said her cats kept getting run over, there was no data collected about how the pets died. | How did the pets die? |
Goldfish live for 12 years. | Some do and some don’t | The data showed that some lived for a shorter time, others longer. 12 years was the number in the middle of the range. | |
More people own cockatiels than rats. | Can’t tell | There were more cockatiel deaths than rats, but there are also likely to be pets that are still living. | How many of each type of pet, both still living and dead, have been owned by class members? |
Rabbits live longer than rats. | Can’t tell | For the class’s pets this statement is true, but this is not enough evidence to apply to rabbits in general. | We would need to ask many more people about their pets to get a bigger sample. We would also have to find out about those animals living in the wild. |
Of the pets owned by the class, the median life expectancy for rabbits is 5 years. | Yes | Both the median life expectancy table and graph confirm this is true for this class. | |
Cockatiels last the longest because they are the easiest to look after. | Can’t tell | No data was collected about how easy it is to look after cockatiels. | What does it take to look after all the types of pets? |
More students in the class would prefer a pet cat than a pet rabbit. | Can’t tell | More cats died than rabbits. That could be because more people have cats, but we can’t be sure. No information was collected about what sorts of pets the class would most like to have. | What is each student’s preferred pet if they had a choice? |
Rats don't make very good pets. | Can’t tell | Rats had the lowest median life expectancy, which means they might die more quickly. However, they could make very good pets during that time. | How does each animal score against criteria of what makes an animal a good pet? |
Big dogs don't live as long as small dogs. | Can’t tell | No data was collected on the size of the dogs that died. | What sizes were the dogs that died? |
Students could also come up with their own statements that others critique in a similar way.
In order to able to evaluate the trustworthiness of data, students need statistical knowledge to know what sorts of questions to ask.
Knowing something about interpreting data, and the limits of what you can infer from the data you have, supports students to become scientifically literate, i.e., to participate as critical, informed, and responsible citizens in a society in which science plays a significant role. (This is the purpose of science in NZC.)
Can students see patterns over a whole data set rather than just being able to read particular points?
Can they recognise the limits of the conclusions that can be drawn from a particular data set?
Can they recognise which questions can be answered by a data set and which can't? Do they understand the key statistical ideas that will help them see the strengths and limits of a particular data set?
For suggestions about adapting tasks in ways that allow students to show progress in critiquing evidence see Progressions .
As it stands this activity has little science content. To develop understandings about the Living World, this statistical inquiry could however be embedded in a “science unit” (see, for example, Animal Life Histories: Reproduction, Growth and Change , Building Science Concepts, Booklet 4).
There are three activities in Figure It Out: Statistics, Level 3-4 (2001) that could be extended to strengthen students’ capabilities to critique data:
In Healthy Tomato plants (Assessment Resource Banks), students are asked to draw conclusions from data.
Connected, pets