| |
This activity introduces three models
of ‘how science works’, and asks students
to apply the models to historical case
studies.
|
|
| Overview of the activity |
| |
| This activity concerns
a key feature of the nature of science, which is
the notion of a ‘scientific method’. This has been
(and continues to be) a very contested area within
the philosophy of science, so it is not possible
to offer a single prescription for how science can
(or should) proceed. This type of complexity and
lack of a closed answer should appeal to many gifted
learners. |
| |
‘The students all seemed to be thinking
quite deeply about the topic. They spent
much of the time reading individually
and thinking on their own before bouncing
ideas off each other. I think they also
found it interesting and challenging as
well.’
(From the Observation notes of one of
the graduate assistants)
|
|
| |
| The activity introduces
some basic ideas from the philosophy of science
by proposing three models of ideas about how science
works. These are simplified models, but nonetheless
offer an authentic taste of the issues involved. |
| |
| Rationale of the activity |
| |
| Philosophy is considered
a very suitable area for gifted learners (see chapter
4). In science there is a danger that teaching is
often focused on well-accepted models (or at least
curriculum models that imply the science is well-accepted),
and the type of practical work often undertaken
may seem to imply that interrogating nature is a
rather straightforward process. As well as giving
a limited and distorted view of what science (as
largely an activity concerning contested or poorly
understood subject matter) is actually like, this
approach may well be uninspiring to the most able
learners, who are ready to be challenged to engage
with some of the uncertainty involved in developing
scientific knowledge. |
| |
| The activity |
| |
| The students are asked
to work in groups to discuss how historical sketches
of the work of scientists support (or not) three
models of the scientific method: |
| The three models presented
are: |
•
Model 1 -
Induction
• Model
2 - Falsification
• Model
3 -
Paradigm shifts |
|
| These are linked to
the ideas of Bacon, Popper and Kuhn. |
| |
The vignettes provided
(and teachers may wish to substitute or supplement
these examples) are of the work of: Marie Curie;
Albert Einstein; William Harvey; Robert Millikan;
Barbara McClintock; Crick, Franklin, Wilkins &
Watson; Galileo Galilei; Lise Meitner; Jane Goodall;
Johann Kepler
The examples were selected to offer a range of different
types of scientific work, and to make specific points
relevant to the different models of the scientific
enterprise.
Some additional materials are provided to help structure
the activity, and scaffold learning: |
| |
A summary
table: to help
learners identify and keep in mind the key
points in the three models – information
has to be fitted in the appropriate cells.
Flow charts
that summarise
each of the three models (as an alternative
form of representing the key ideas)
Tables for
recording evidence
that supports or is in conflict with each
model. |
|
| |
| The task ends with some
questions for group discussion. |
| |
Figure 2.1: A flow chart to
illustrate one model of science |
| |
| Method |
Philosopher |
Approach |
Progress |
| Induction |
Bacon |
Accumulation
of facts
|
Collect sufficient data |
| Falsification |
Popper |
Test
conjectures critically |
Refute false conjectures |
| Paradigm
shifts |
Kuhn |
Spot
significant anomalies |
Revolutions
in scientific thinking |
|
|
|
Figure 2.2: Summary table – a simplified version
of three ‘philosophies of science’ |
| |
B1: ‘so Einstein refuted other people’s
ideas and made his own . . .’
B2: ‘yeah, it says here he developed a
range of models’
B3: ‘he also tried to refute his own ideas
. . .’
B1: ‘ William Harvey also refuted other
ideas as well . . . and I think Galileo
did as well’
B3: ‘it seems like quite a lot of people
used Popper’s model . . .’
(ASCEND delegates discuss the historical
vignettes)
|
|
| |
| Debriefing points: |
| |
| As with most of the
ASCEND activities, the tasks are designed to encourage
active discussion, rather than focusing on specified
end points. The different vignettes do not collectively
suggest any one of the models is adequate – and
this reflects the lively debate among those who
study such matters! |
| |
one boy suggests that ‘different situations
need different models depending on
what you’re researching on’
(From the Observations notes of one
of the graduate assistants) |
|
|
| |
| It may be worth pointing
out that Bacon’s ideas now seem naive, but were
very influential for a long time. It may also be
worth noting that (despite a quite lively debate
on the relative merits of the two approaches) Popper’s
model is primarily prescriptive (what scientists
should do) whereas Kuhn’s sociological approach
was more descriptive – reporting what scientists
seemed to do. |
| |
| Resources |
| |
| The following resources
are included on the CD: |
| |
| Resource |
Description |
Filename |
| Instructions |
Instructions
for groups. |
Act
2 Instructions |
| Models |
Three
models of how science progresses |
Act
2 Models |
| Vignettes |
Ten
sketches of the work of well-known
scientists |
Act
2 Vignettes |
| Summary
sheet |
Summary
table – and key points to complete
cell tables |
Act
2 Summary |
| Flowcharts |
A
flow chart giving an overview
for each of the three models |
Act
2 Flows |
| Evaluation
sheets |
Three
sheets for recording evidence
supporting or contradicting the
model |
Act
2 Evaluation |
|
|
|
| |
| Download
PDF of activity 2 brief |
| |
|
