How Can We Encourage Scientific Thinking in Children?

[jack action]

I wish more people would understand this concept:

​

When I see an adult shutting down a curious mind, I'm always disappointed.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yes! My wife is a Montessori teacher and this is a main tenet for them.

What are ways that we destroy that inner scientist?

 

[jack action]

I was with a 3-year-old once, throwing rocks in a small creek (1-2 feet deep). The creek had also a lot of big rocks in it (a few feet in diameter), such that they were partially out of the water.

So we're throwing rock close to the edge where we were and they were, of course, sinking to the bottom. So I asked the little boy why he thought that was. He answered: «Because rocks sink to the bottom.» So I challenged his statement by pointing the big rocks on the other side of the creek that appeared to be floating: «What about those rocks?» The kids paused for a few seconds and answered with all the confidence in the world: «Because some rocks sink and some rocks float.»

I was amazed by this behavior from a 3-year-old. It was exactly what a scientific does. He made an observation (small rocks sinking to the bottom) and elaborated a theory (all rocks sink). When his theory was challenged with a new observation, he corrected his theory accordingly! I wish I could have taken the time to take him across the creek to show him that the big rocks were actually resting on the bottom as well, but we were called by the other adults for supper and we left it at that.

Once with the other adults, I shared this amazing behavior to one of the mothers (not of the kid in question though) and when I mentioned that the kid said «some rocks sink, some rocks float», she replied: «That's stupid, rocks don't float!»

She was focusing on the quality of the answer of a 3-year-old, rather than the process he used to get to this answer. That kid was doing this process with no shame whatsoever. One can easily imagine that if people tell him that what he's saying is «stupid», he will stop doing things that lead to «stupid» statements. That is when shame comes into play and self-esteem & confidence goes down the window and kids begin thinking they're not good in science, they don't have the «gift».

 

[StatGuy2000]

My speculation is that adults who lack all curiosity of the world and believe in following strict dogma when following the world (e.g. people who are strictly religious) are more likely to end up being parents that squelch the curiosity of their young children. I feel this is particularly true of parents who lack a formal education

(I should clarify that lacking a formal education does not in of itself necessarily mean that one lacks curiosity or would not encourage their children to pursue an education or nurture curiosity and exploration).

 

[jack action]

My speculation is that adults who lack all curiosity of the world [...]

That is my question: Who are those people who are «lacking all curiosity of the world»?

It seems to me that all humans (i.e. kids) are born curious. Their survival depend on this. They need to explore to adapt. Why does it stop to be the case for most of us? Why the need to «kill it» on others as well?

I'm not looking for blame, just understand the motivation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It seems to me that all humans (i.e. kids) are born curious. Their survival depend on this. They need to explore to adapt. Why does it stop to be the case for most of us? Why the need to «kill it» on others as well?

Curiosity and sense of wonder is killed in the child slowly through parenting and social institutions. Sit down, shut up, don't touch that, pay attention. Early childhood development is mostly achieved via self experimentation. Over time, formal instruction takes over and they learn to be spoon fed and take directions.

 

[Bystander]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-electricity-made-out-of.940141/ , e.g..

 

[jack action]

Curiosity and sense of wonder is killed in the child slowly through parenting and social institutions. Sit down, shut up, don't touch that, pay attention. Early childhood development is mostly achieved via self experimentation. Over time, formal instruction takes over and they learn to be spoon fed and take directions.

Yes, but why? Why does it seems to be the «right thing to do» to do so? Even if the politically correct answer everyone will say is to encourage curiosity and experimentation (which means that people understand what is the right attitude), the natural reaction is still to steer people (and kids) in the «right» direction.

I love this article about kids learning how to read and that fits more with what I think about how humans learn.

@Bystander : That is a painful thread to read, that we see too often on PF. I understand the concept of requiring using proper language to clearly express your ideas, but I feel some go out of their ways to NOT understand what others are trying to say; Like there is some sort of competition to win on a grammar technicality.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yes, but why? Why does it seems to be the «right thing to do» to do so?

I think it's a flawed system due to needing control and installation of strict code of conduct instead giving guidance and direction that is developmentally appropriate.

 

[symbolipoint]

That is my question: Who are those people who are «lacking all curiosity of the world»?

It seems to me that all humans (i.e. kids) are born curious. Their survival depend on this. They need to explore to adapt. Why does it stop to be the case for most of us? Why the need to «kill it» on others as well?

I'm not looking for blame, just understand the motivation.

Children have less responsibility and can have more opportunity to think and play, and wonder, and depending on their impulses, try things. Adults, having more responsibilities to worry about, stop their play and curiosity - and sometimes try to stop it in others too.

 

[Andy Resnick]

{snip]She was focusing on the quality of the answer of a 3-year-old, rather than the process he used to get to this answer. That kid was doing this process with no shame whatsoever. One can easily imagine that if people tell him that what he's saying is «stupid», he will stop doing things that lead to «stupid» statements. That is when shame comes into play and self-esteem & confidence goes down the window and kids begin thinking they're not good in science, they don't have the «gift».

I see this kind of behavior- adults, specifically parents, inappropriately interceding in the child's efforts- all the time in science fairs, for all age groups. It's obvious who actually came up with the idea and figured out how to test it.

 

[Stephenk53]

In my experience my mother tried to take over almost all of the projects I did at home in school and got angry at all of the people I worked with saying they did not do enough no matter how much they did, thus she killed my love of working with my hands thus making me now confused as to what I will do as an adult. I think parents should try to help their kids if they struggle but should not take it over and let their kids fail some times instead of taking control and get angry when the kid tries to do it themselves. Unfortunately this also killed my curiosity and my curiosity is only recently coming back slowly but I developed a fear of failure which I think is due to her controling

 

[Tom.G]

That is my question: Who are those people who are «lacking all curiosity of the world»?

A rather thorough explanation is in The Authoritarian Specter, Bob Altemeyer, Harvard University Press, 1996. The first part, with all the background info, is a bit tedious where he establishes his bona fides. The major part is quite informative and insightful (sometimes dense), it really gives a view into the minds of those <<lacking all curiosity of the world>>. Look it up on books.google.com. (There are even some free excerpts available online if you dig for them.)

No, I'm not associated with it in any way. Just think it's a good read.
Tom

 

[nomadreid]

As Greg Bernhardt said, it's a flawed system. I taught mathematics and physics (and a few other subjects when the school required it) for many years in many different parts of the world and under different national systems- on the secondary level, but I had to see what was being done on the elementary level as well. In all of them the system was basically one going back to the Greeks with a few adornments from modern technology, in which subjects are compartmentalized ( I even went to interview in an alternative school once whose ideology clearly stated that there should be inter-mixture of the disciplines ...but in practice this was not executed. The International Baccalaureate system makes a brave try -- although too little too late -- with its "Theory of Knowledge" course that is supposed to be tie different disciplines together.), the pace of study is foreordained, the grouping of the students is inflexible, and the parents are more interested in the child receiving a certificate than whether anything worthwhile is actually learned. In most schools children are taught from an early age that the grades/evaluations/notes are the goal, because the teachers are under pressure to produce these numbers, and curiosity is transformed into grade-grubbing. Pavlov's dogs. Some alternative schools do away with grades until the last two years of secondary school, which is positive, but these same schools are coupled with ideologies which introduce several negative aspects which cancel many of the positive aspects. (I am thinking of the Waldorf Schools, with their hostility to technology and modern science.) Every time I hear a politician praise education, I shudder, because most times it is lip service which will not translate into anything concrete.

 

[PeroK]

I owe an enormous debt to the Scottish Education system. Twelve years at school and four at university. All entirely free.

Neither was perfect, but the good overwhelmingly outweighed the bad. And it was all there for the taking.

 

[jfmcghee]

This blog post back in 2015 by Sabine Hossenfelder seems apt...

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/06/i-wasnt-born-scientist-and-you-werent.html

 

[rootone]

One of my own favorite experiments as a kid was to put my hand out of the car (or train} window and see if I could generate lift like a plane does,

... I was told that is dangerous

 

[jack action]

This blog post back in 2015 by Sabine Hossenfelder seems apt...

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/06/i-wasnt-born-scientist-and-you-werent.html

Nice blog for this discussion. There are some parts I disagree with, but I'll try to address only what is on topic of this thread.

The author separates the 'curious' and 'bias' natural behaviors of humans, mostly saying the 'bias' nature goes against the scientific methodology, therefore 'kids aren't born scientists'. But it doesn't disagree with the fact that the 'curious' nature is the great motivator for science, which is the subject of this thread.

Her following anecdote:

When the girls were beginning to walk I told them to never, ever, touch the stove when I’m in the kitchen because it’s hot and it hurts and don’t, just don’t. They took this so seriously that for years they were afraid to come anywhere near the stove at any time. Yes, good for them.

is what relates the most to this thread. I'm not sure how much «good for them» is to frightening the kids that way (although I'm not saying a single incident like that is necessarily enough to influence an entire kid's life). Yes, they weren't burnt, but is that the only thing we care about? If a kid grows up to be afraid of everything, is «never been injured» such a plus in his or her life? I got burned in my youth (Once, when I was 8-9 y.o., I got off my uncle's tractor and used the exhaust pipe as a handgrip), the scars have healed and I probably have been less afraid and more respectful of heat sources I encountered afterward. It doesn't always (rarely?) end up with the most terrifying scenario.

But I do agree with her following statement, which is an extension of this thread:

The more prevalent problem though is the social biases whose effects become more pronounced the larger the groups are, the tighter they are connected, and the more information is shared. This is why these biases are so much more relevant today than a century, even two decades ago.

Expecting scientific thinking from everybody is needed more than ever today because there is so much information to deal with. Yet, it seems we prefer the «need-to-know» approach because we assume no one will ever be able to deal with such amount of information. But, it discourages curiosity and discussion, and encourages people relying on theses biases we naturally have, our last hiding place from the terrifying unknown.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
I'm not looking for blame, just understand the motivation.

Insecurity?

Another guess would be that adults, in general, are conditioned not to admit, "I don't know.", as that would be admitting; "I'm kind of stupid."
hmmmm... I guess that probably falls into the "insecurity" category, also.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This blog post back in 2015 by Sabine Hossenfelder seems apt...

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/06/i-wasnt-born-scientist-and-you-werent.html

Thanks for posting this- I had not read it before. For me, the critical paragraph is:

'Even though it often isn’t explicitly taught to students, everyone who succeeded making a career in research has learned to work against their own confirmation bias. Failing to list contradicting evidence or shortcomings of one’s own ideas is the easiest way to tell a pseudoscientist. A scientist’s best friend is their inner voice saying: “You are wrong. You are wrong, wrong, W.R.O.N.G.” Try to prove yourself wrong. Then try it again. Try to find someone willing to tell you why you are wrong. Listen. Learn. Look for literature that explains why you are wrong. Then go back to your idea. That’s the way science operates. It’s not the way humans normally operate.'

She's absolutely correct, and also provides some insight regarding anti-science attitudes. I don't like being wrong all the time, yet it's critical to produce good science. I imagine most people who are regularly exposed to 'you are wrong to think that', especially when they are young and in school, eventually tune out and decide rationality isn't worth a diminished sense of self.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

In state level science fairs these past few years, it seems clear that kids are born BS artists. They are great at polishing turds and pretending to have done something important. Mrs. Dr. Courtney noted that as many times as science projects have claimed to cure cancer, it would be eradicated by now. Maybe 20% of the projects even demonstrate a proper application of the scientific method. And this is at the state level - these projects were award winners at the regional levels - none of the judges there caught the glaring errors and misapplication of the scientific method at the lower levels.

 

[Mark44]

IMO, it's a stretch to say that kids are "born scientists." Curious, yes, but curiosity isn't the only attribute of a scientist.

 

[jack action]

IMO, it's a stretch to say that kids are "born scientists." Curious, yes, but curiosity isn't the only attribute of a scientist.

They are more than curious in my opinion. They also make hypotheses based on their observations as well.

But the thread objective is not as much as to determine if curiosity is enough to define scientific behavior, as to understand why so many adults try to shut down or discourage this behavior.

 

[Mark44]

They are more than curious in my opinion. They also make hypotheses based on their observations as well.

But the thread objective is not as much as to determine if curiosity is enough to define scientific behavior, as to understand why so many adults try to shut down or discourage this behavior.

OK, fair enough. The adult response you're talking about puts me in mind of a story I read by Ring Lardner many years ago. In the story, the son asked a question.

“Are you lost, Daddy?" I asked tenderly. "Shut up," he explained.”

 

[rootone]

They are more than curious in my opinion. They also make hypotheses based on their observations as well.

But the thread objective is not as much as to determine if curiosity is enough to define scientific behavior, as to understand why so many adults try to shut down or discourage this behavior.

Not adults generally, but yes some parents can be overly protective of their children;
Everyone learns by making mistakes.

 

[symbolipoint]

They are more than curious in my opinion. They also make hypotheses based on their observations as well.

But the thread objective is not as much as to determine if curiosity is enough to define scientific behavior, as to understand why so many adults try to shut down or discourage this behavior.

Adults get hit with real life and need to make practical decisions. Meanwhile children play.

 

[rootone]

Are we there yet?

 

[jack action]

Adults get hit with real life and need to make practical decisions. Meanwhile children play.

Oooh! I like this one.

Do you have a reference which defines «real life»?

So children aren't experiencing «real life»?

Forget that last question, as I think I already know the answer: They don't. Way back when, children used to follow their parents - like any other animal which takes care of their youngs do - and learned by copying what they did. If mom and dad were doing it, it should seem logical to any kid to watch them and copy their behavior. Somehow, we now isolate the kids from the herd for two decades or so and complain they don't know anything about «real life».

Imagine a kid that goes to school and learn about, say, trigonometry, and he or she returns to his/her home where the parents don't use it - barely know how to do it - and cringe with fear and disgust while looking at the problems. What is a kid supposed to think about this type of work? «My parents are fine without it and they seem in pain with it, why should I waste my time learning this stuff?»

Meanwhile children play.

Aren't adults supposed to play too? When is that cross-over in behavior suppose to occur? My neighbor has cats and she let's them go outside from time to time. The - very well-fed - cats hunt birds and mice. They don't eat them, we just find a dead one here and there, once in a while. They don't hunt because they need to, they do it because it makes them feel good.

How come what humans need to do to stay alive is seen as some kind of torture that we «have» to do instead of a joyful thing we «get» to do? How come trigonometry isn't this fun thing parents get to do to solve everyday problems? So fun, that when there are no problems to solve, they just create some, just for the pleasure of using their skills. So fun, so useful, that their kids can't just wait to do it too.

 

[Stephenk53]

I think kids are born scientists considering most of the kids I know growing up attempted to follow the scientific method without knowing it. I think kids are born bas scientists but scientists none the less. I think if parents supported their curiosity and taught them the scientific earlier and in a fun way they would be scientists, in fact as a kid I attempted to do some experiments and followed the scientific method before learning it. I think we need to make STEM fun for kids and not shut them down when they attempt to do STEM. Many parents including my own seem to hate learning causing students to have trouble trying to learn

 

[symbolipoint]

Kids naturally scientists? This depends on the kid (child). This topic did not really seem to be one of formally how children develop and not either seem to be a sociological study.

Imagine a parent and a child (maybe an older child) who have some work to do. They need to dig a hole in the ground to plant a small tree. To the parent, this is a task to do. Dig the hole. To the kid, this begins as "dig the hole" but as the child sees some earthworms emerging, and as he notices the different textures of some of what he is digging (like some parts gravely, but lower parts seem very smooth and thick), this child pauses, examines these and thinks about them for some time. If he is doing some of this, then maybe THIS child could be a scientist. Does the parent or adult care? Maybe. Depends on the particular adult. Or maybe the two of them really don't care about these irrelevant details and are more interested in getting the task done, "dig the hole".

 

[rootone]

Are we there yet?

 

[symbolipoint]

Are we there yet?

Are we there yet?

No, I believe we are not. Members are still showing some difference in opinions. Some children are more inquisitive and peristant than are others. This could change as each gets older, maybe favorably in some, maybe less favorably in others.

 

[OmCheeto]

I found this TEDx video that popped up in my FB feed the other day, interesting.
This guy, George Land, claims that 98% of 5 year olds are guilty of "imaginative thinking", while only 2% of adults are guilty of that.



Though, for the life of me, I could not find evidence that this guy has done what he has said.
So, as always, OK to delete.

 

[symbolipoint]

I'm watching now. Not can decide if this answers the question but it is an interesting talk.

He said the word, "institution". Maybe that is meaningful. Think of the child so curious as to crawl around under the house, and finds a few artifacts left behind by the construction workers who have long since gone on to other jobs. The child is not doing this exploring as part of any institution. Budding archaeologist or budding anthropologist? Maybe.

 

[OmCheeto]

In state level science fairs these past few years, it seems clear that kids are born BS artists. They are great at polishing turds and pretending to have done something important. Mrs. Dr. Courtney noted that as many times as science projects have claimed to cure cancer, it would be eradicated by now. Maybe 20% of the projects even demonstrate a proper application of the scientific method. And this is at the state level - these projects were award winners at the regional levels - none of the judges there caught the glaring errors and misapplication of the scientific method at the lower levels.

Are you familiar with the documentary series "7-Up"?

My takeaway from watching it, was that the "BS", was instilled by their parents.

 

[symbolipoint]

I'm watching now. Not can decide if this answers the question but it is an interesting talk.

He said the word, "institution". Maybe that is meaningful. Think of the child so curious as to crawl around under the house, and finds a few artifacts left behind by the construction workers who have long since gone on to other jobs. The child is not doing this exploring as part of any institution. Budding archaeologist or budding anthropologist? Maybe.

Wow! "Get down before you hurt yourself!"

You just have watch the video and look at the cartoon picture near the end.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Are you familiar with the documentary series "7-Up"?

My takeaway from watching it, was that the "BS", was instilled by their parents.

I can see the BS coming from lots of sources, but teachers and science fair judges certainly provide enough positive feedback for the BS to keep the students polishing their turds.

 

[nomadreid]

This thread is a bit old, but the issue remains current. I think there is a piece of scientific method lacking in this discussion: that is, a control group. Whereas it is true that a lot of schools and other social institutions tend to destroy creativity, it is not clear that this is the only cause. Do we have a control group? Not really, so there is a tendency to idealize childhood. But in so doing we seem to forget that childhood is influenced by biological factors. For example, evolution molded us to try to survive and procreate with more efficiency than our competitors, and relatively short-term thinking was usually what was required. At an early age, we see children using their developing minds to handle the basics of survival; and this often requires creativity. However, after a certain point, the need for creativity is no longer evident to all kids, and in fact expending extra "energy" for thinking seems counter-productive if one's short-term goals are met anyway, so the famed laziness sets in in many children. Not all, of course. Puberty complicates the picture even more. Schools, parents, etc. may aggravate this, and put dampers on creativity, although there are also good schools, parents, etc. that promote creativity, so it is hard to say what the net balance is. As well, the measures of creativity are often skewed. For example, I have seen (in my years of teaching adolescents) some amazingly creative inventions for cheating. But this creativity is usually not recognized. So, yes, kids are born with an instinct for a rudimentary scientific method, and it would be nice if this instinct remained and become polished, but we should be careful about ascribing the causes for its decline.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Saying kids are born scientists from these observations is like saying kids are born mathematicians based on K level counting and arithmetic.

It's a beginning that can be nurtured and directed, but a lot of ideas need to be added:
1) Logic and ideas need to be capable of following an orderly sequence of steps so that each observation is not its own law.
2) The idea of rejecting hypotheses based on controlled, repeatable experiments is essential
3) In the physical sciences (and of growing importance in biology), careful, quantitative predictions and experiments are essential. Chemistry and physics are NOT about qualitative predictions and observations. Both disciplines were not really born until quantitative models were formed and tested in quantitative experiments.
4) The notions of independent and dependent variables are key.

In my work with middle and high school students, it's not so much as creativity has been stiffled, but these concepts are not meaningfully imparted.

Sure, the buzz words are used and discussed, but they are not really executed in experimental settings. By the time most students get to high school, they recognize all the words and ideas, but they have not been required to practice them to the point of proficiency. Nor have they been required to understand the key historical developments that led to the rejection of many obsolete ideas (because they were failed hypotheses) in favor of current thinking (based on experiments supporting hypotheses). The FACTS of science receive 80-90% of the time and attention, and the PROCESS of science is woefully underrepresented.

This process continues into college, where the required laboratories are often used as extra demonstrations and practice for the lecture material that will appear on the tests. If the weekly experiment is not testing a well articulated hypothesis that tests quantitative predictions with careful measurements and does not require students to present their data and write a discussion regarding whether the hypothesis was supported by THEIR data, then it is still a FACT focused use of time and not really teaching the scientific method (the key process in developing scientists).

Most science teachers need to stop merely telling students about the scientific method and empower (and require) them to actually execute it over and over again until it is meaningfully mastered.

 

[jack action]

It's a beginning that can be nurtured and directed, but a lot of ideas need to be added:
1) Logic and ideas need to be capable of following an orderly sequence of steps so that each observation is not its own law.
2) The idea of rejecting hypotheses based on controlled, repeatable experiments is essential
3) In the physical sciences (and of growing importance in biology), careful, quantitative predictions and experiments are essential. Chemistry and physics are NOT about qualitative predictions and observations. Both disciplines were not really born until quantitative models were formed and tested in quantitative experiments.
4) The notions of independent and dependent variables are key.

All of these are applied by kids:
1) When you have a single observation, you will assume it is a law. If you meet two alien life forms, one blue and one red and the red one bites you, you will assume that the next red one you'll encounter will bite you and classified the blue one as 'harmless'. That is what kids do all the time. The fact that you have little data doesn't mean you don't have a scientific mind.
2) If you meet a second set of blue and red alien life forms and the blue one bites you and the red one doesn't, you will quickly reject your initial hypothesis. That is what kids do all the time.
3) If you meet many other sets of blue and red alien life forms and you finally figure out that the biters are actually the big ones and the color have nothing to do with it, you are using quantitative values. That is what kids do all the time. Lacking precision and accuracy doesn't mean you don't use a scientific process; it means you have rudimentary tools or that you don't use them properly.
4) When you realize that the red alien life form must be a lot bigger that a blue alien life form before becoming a biter and that the number of arms has no influence whatsoever, you can make the difference between independent and dependent variables. That is what kids do all the time.

The difference between a kid and a physicist is experience. The only thing education does is quickly steer you towards the most meaningful experiments to draw the right conclusions. Imagine if every individual had to discover how to make fire by himself or herself. Many of us would not live long enough to accidentally find the two correct rocks to rub together, let alone invent the match. Most of us would think fire is a punishment sent from gods, destroying everything it hits (which is still a valid hypothesis when you don't have other meaningful data).

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The difference between a kid and a physicist is experience.

If this were true, we'd have had a lot more physicists before Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.

The scientific method was something developed by mankind, not something humans are born with. If humans were born with it, we'd have had it thousands of years earlier.

 

[TeethWhitener]

If this were true, we'd have had a lot more physicists before Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science
There were.

If humans were born with it, we'd have had it thousands of years earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_scientific_method
We did.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but the argument you're making here is shoddy.

Incidentally, this thread made me think of this:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/natural-scientists

 

[jack action]

If this were true, we'd have had a lot more physicists before Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.

The scientific method was something developed by mankind, not something humans are born with. If humans were born with it, we'd have had it thousands of years earlier.

So you are saying that alchemists were not scientists because they were on the wrong path, but chemists - who based their work on alchemy - were scientists because they actually found the right hypothesis once that all the bad ones were eliminated?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

3) In the physical sciences (and of growing importance in biology), careful, quantitative predictions and experiments are essential. Chemistry and physics are NOT about qualitative predictions and observations. Both disciplines were not really born until quantitative models were formed and tested in quantitative experiments.

Multiple respondents are missing the importance of quantitative predictions and measurements in the physical sciences. Your experience may be different from mine. But my experience is overwhelmingly that kids do not naturally think of or develop quantitative measurements and predictions relating to natural law until they receive lots of careful guidance and empowerment in that direction.

Further, I recommend those who think kids are born scientists to spend more time reviewing science fair projects at your local regional science fair. Most readers here are probably qualified and can even volunteer to be judges in some category or another. If your experiences end up similar to mine, you will change your mind. Now, most science projects that reach the regional level have already been filtered out at the school level and are purportedly the creme of the crop.

But many (often most) are still pretty bad in terms of demonstrating proper execution of the scientific method. I'm not complaining that the selected problems are not interesting or relevant. Even simple problems are often addressed without a proper execution of the scientific method. Recurring themes:
1. There is no testable hypothesis.
2. The proposed experimental method does not actually test the articulated hypothesis.
3. Woeful underappreciation for confounding factors.
4. No consideration given to measurement accuracy.
5. No clearly articulated predictions properly based on hypothesis for the actual experimental method planned.
6. Support claimed for hypothesis in cases where experiment did not support the hypothesis.
7. Failure to reject hypothesis when experiment actually tended to disprove hypothesis.
8. Strong confirmation bias.
9. Over emphasis on interest or importance or problem rather than proper experiment to test it.
10. Inadequate sample size
11. Removal of data points not supporting hypothesis
12. Fudging data to have stronger apparent support for hypothesis

 

[jack action]

Multiple respondents are missing the importance of quantitative predictions and measurements in the physical sciences.

As the person who started this thread, I think you are the one missing the point. If you haven't done it yet, you should listen to the video in post #1.

It's about adults killing the curiosity in kids, which is where all scientific interest comes from.

The example of science fairs you give is probably another example of how some adults treat science as a contest to be won rather than fun experiments to do. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we loose more kids with these ridiculously competitive science fairs than we win some. And most of the ones we win probably want to follow through just because they think scientists gets a better pay at the end of the day.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

It's about adults killing the curiosity in kids, which is where all scientific interest comes from.

I am in no way disputing the notion that kids are born with lots of scientific interest or that public education tends to kill it.

I am disputing the notion that kids are born scientists. Being a scientist requires both interest and ability. Most may be born with the interest, but they are not born with the ability, as my posts have emphasized.

The example of science fairs you give is probably another example of how some adults treat science as a contest to be won rather than fun experiments to do. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we loose more kids with these ridiculously competitive science fairs than we win some. And most of the ones we win probably want to follow through just because they think scientists gets a better pay at the end of the day.

How many science fairs have you actually been to in the past decade? At the school and regional level, they are not very competitive at all any more. Most students completed their projects voluntarily (as opposed to being a requirement for a class), and while most would be happy to win, there is not anything approaching the kind of competitiveness one sees sporting competitions or other academic competitions (science and math olympiads, for example). Nor is there a comparable sense of disappointment (to sports) for most students who do not win. Stuff like quiz bowl and robotics have much more competition (and disappointment) than these local science fairs.

Again, you should attend some of these science fairs in person before you wrongly assume that what happens there is comparable to what you may have experienced in the distant past. (The state and national levels do get more competitive in unhealthy ways, but 90% of student science fair projects never make it to these levels, so these students are unlikely to be impacted by the unhealthy competition.) (I've attended over a dozen school and regional science fairs in 3 different states and mentored projects that competed in several additional states.) I always emphasize that if the science if good and done right, students should not focus much on the competitive outcomes, which are subject to the biases and abilities of less than capable judges. (Been on the judging side often also - seen too many dentists and high school students judging physics projects.)

But my experience at many science fairs just broadens by experience at a number of schools at which I've worked and volunteered that screams that most students are not born with anything approaching a sound scientific method. I've mentored many, many more non-competitive science projects and the absence of competition does not improve my near universal observation that without proper guidance, students will attempt science with these recurring themes:

1. There is no testable hypothesis.
2. The proposed experimental method does not actually test the articulated hypothesis.
3. Woeful underappreciation for confounding factors.
4. No consideration given to measurement accuracy.
5. No clearly articulated predictions properly based on hypothesis for the actual experimental method planned.
6. Support claimed for hypothesis in cases where experiment did not support the hypothesis.
7. Failure to reject hypothesis when experiment actually tended to disprove hypothesis.
8. Strong confirmation bias.
9. Over emphasis on interest or importance or problem rather than proper experiment to test it.
10. Inadequate sample size.
11. Removal of data points not supporting hypothesis.
12. Fudging data to have stronger apparent support for hypothesis.

Personally, I'm neutral on whether or not a given science project should end up in a competition. I leave this up to the student and try and do my best to support their choice. Competition can be a useful motivator for some students; often the best motivator is simply the relevant due dates. Other students have sufficient self-motivation to keep their projects moving along without much externally imposed structure.

 

[symbolipoint]

I am in no way disputing the notion that kids are born with lots of scientific interest or that public education tends to kill it.

I am disputing the notion that kids are born scientists. Being a scientist requires both interest and ability. Most may be born with the interest, but they are not born with the ability, as my posts have emphasized.

Be careful with that belief, especially your being an educator. The problem is lack of interest more so than lack of ability.

 

[brainpushups]

The problem is lack of interest more so than lack of ability.

I disagree. Ability must be developed and takes significant effort. Yes, most people have the potential to develop ability but far fewer have the patience and tenacity for it (or, "interest", if you wish). Curiosity about the world, if that's what we mean by interest, is probably as close to a universal human trait as we can get, and that seems to be more aligned with the original post. I agree with @Dr. Courtney 's interpretation of what it means to be 'scientific' which is more that just being curious.

I am currently in the middle of a lesson with my high school students about pseudoscience where they are cautioned about the behaviors Dr. Courtney lists in post #46. I have them read Feynman's famous Cargo Cult Science speech, we discuss rationalization of beliefs that contradict experience and observation (e.g. confirmation bias), I provide several other resources describing some of the warning signs of pseudoscience, and I also show them this Last Week Tonight episode in which John Oliver discusses the problems with pop-science and the general public's tendency to consume it (of which the video in post #1 is perhaps an example). I also provide them with a list of websites (a mix of pseudoscience and legitimate sites) and ask them to identify whether they think the information is bogus or not by citing what warning signs they do or do not observe.

My point with this lesson, as it is here, is that most people (kids included) act in non-scientific ways. Scientific thinking, both as an individual and collectively, is not an innate tendency.

The lesson described above comes on the heels of two months of fairly rigorous experimental/theoretical skill development where students are taught how to properly measure, estimate and justify their uncertainties, propagate their uncertainties in calculations, make quantitative hypotheses/predictions and test them, and learn to search for errors when results appear to contradict well-established laws. Most students do not have the patience for this final step. I usually have 1 or 2 students (out of around 30) per year who are willing to go back and re-check their measurements and calculations with enough care to find an error rather than just speculate with justification (my minimum requirement) about what the error may have been. That level of care is one thing that distinguishes science.

I'm sure that the fact this level of care is being asked of them by a teacher in a course that many of them would probably rather not be taking has a lot to do with that. Actually, I take that back. Most students like me and enjoy the course, but they dislike the work load (only 3 hrs of homework per week!) and the high expectations. Even when I used to do science fair so that students could pick their own topics most were unwilling to exhibit the kind of care necessary for science.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Be careful with that belief, especially your being an educator. The problem is lack of interest more so than lack of ability.

We may be defining our terms differently. By "interest" I mean the innate curiosity to understand that may not imply enough desire to follow through in ways often needed to gain reliable satisfaction for that curiosity. Today's teachers encounter an ADD generation, but by the time most students reach junior high, an awful lot of their innate curiosity that could (and should) be satisfied by their science curricula has been snuffed out (usually by combinations of teachers, curricula, and resource constraints that focus on facts rather than on the discovery process.)

By "ability" in the above context, I don't mean the potential to gain the skills if sufficient time and effort was expended. I mean having actually already taken the time and effort to develop the skill set to perform and assess meaningful scientific experiments in a manner appropriate to the educational level.

By high school, most of the students I've encountered just want to get through most of their classes with a specific grade goal and don't really care about real learning (all subjects) apart from checking their grade goal boxes. This is certainly not unique to science or math, but the objective nature of these subjects makes it harder for teachers to pretend they are succeeding when they are not. Most teachers settle into a death spiral where they are content with students parroting back the required dogma. My goal is always to find the "on button."

But in the meantime, I do my best to motivate as best I can using student grade goals to jumpstart student effort. Experience has shown that with well designed activities a number of students will regain the spark of innate curiosity and also discover they are able to succeed with the proper application of effort over time. Of course, a number of students will just jump through the hoops to reach their grade goals, but even these will discover that they can do more than they thought, and they will become proficient in the learning objectives needed to succeed at the next level.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Most students like me and enjoy the course, but they dislike the work load (only 3 hrs of homework per week!) and the high expectations. Even when I used to do science fair so that students could pick their own topics most were unwilling to exhibit the kind of care necessary for science.

Thanks for making the effort. In 2019, 3 hours of homework a week is rarely going to win any popularity contests, but it is what students need to learn and succeed. Too many STEM and science research type courses have devolved into nothing more than can be accomplished during the regularly scheduled class time, and often the kind of design, execution, and analysis care you write about are abandoned early as "too difficult." You seem to be fighting the good fight. Keep it up!