December 29, 2008

By: Kathy S. from Minneapolis, MN
Comments: 8

I teach elementary school science and I tend to steer away from using the phrase "scientific method" because I feel this can cripple creativity which is really what science is based on. Instead we call the scientific method, "Thinking Like a Scientist" or "Scientific Habits of Mind." In this way, incorporating the design process becomes quite natural.

Posted By: Kathy Scoggin
On: 11/12/2008 8:53:15 PM

I was working with a group of educators yesterday on STEM education initiatives for Minnesota. (STEM = Science/Technology and Math). We were scouring the National Science Standards, Science for All Americans, the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the Atlas of Science Literacy for their language on the content knowledge and concepts in Technology. In the National Science Education Standards, Grades K-12 under Standard E: Abilities of Technological Design /Understandings About Science and Technology you will find they lay out a design process very closely aligned to what we used in our summer institute work. Since STEM education is currently a huge initiative in K-12 education nation-wide I believe this connection maybe useful to folks working with their standards in all content areas and searching for ways to justify/promote additional focus on design with students of all ages.

Posted By: Michael DiMartino
On: 11/13/2008 8:33:46 AM

Science is a great subject to facilitate the design process. Having students brainstorm ideas and then go through the steps to create a project from their ideas. The following is a link to some possibilities for students to use.https://www.imagineeringezine.com/e-zine/science.html

Posted By: Anna Bennett
On: 11/16/2008 7:30:57 PM

I find that using the design process, rather than the typical "scientific method" to solve problems allows the students to be more creative with their solutions. Especially in a field where things are often seen as needing to be either "right" or "wrong", introducing the possibility of gray area challenges what the students know about science. For instance, I asked my students to produce a solution to the problem currently being faced by NASA with the loss of solar power for their Mars probe. Rather than just reading the article and answering questions, we used the design process to come up with a possible solution for future rovers, which requires them to understand all the problems faced by the current rover. It takes longer than doing a group reading, but ultimately I think that it just works better.

Posted By: Bryan Smith
On: 11/30/2008 12:50:10 AM

I agree with the idea that the "scientific method" as presented in textbooks can be very dry and in some ways counter-intuitive. Did anyone you know in science ever actually follow the "steps" of the scientific method? As I sat in the Summer Design Institute in Minneapolis last summer I was continually comparing the design process to the scientific process. I feel that there are many parallels. I think the idea of a new design to address NASA's problems is a great response to a reading or situation and certainly better than simply answering questions. I will look to integrate this idea into my classroom.

Posted By: Stephen Sutton
On: 12/1/2008 3:19:29 PM

I think the difference between the "design model" and the "scientific method" might lay in what they are really doing. A over simplified explanation of the difference is that the design method is meant to solve problems and the scientific method is meant to establish relationships between variables and outcomes. The scientific method is well suited to "pure" science, and is important to establishing connections. And, yes I can think of people who actually follow the "steps" of the scientific method.

Posted By: Thomas Totushek
On: 12/5/2008 11:44:31 AM

I think there is a place for both models in science. For example, we are doing energy in my physics classes. We did "standard" labs using the scientific method to understand changes in potential energy and kinetic energy. Then we did a "design" lab were we explored the ideas though the creation of roller coasters. The kids had a lot of fun exploring potential and kinetic energy is ways that I could not have contrived. Also, the design lab allowed me to have to kids use steel marbles and glass marbles on the same coaster to find there was a dramatic difference in time which will lead us into rotational motion (moment of inertia) for our next unit.

Posted By: Anna Bennett
On: 12/14/2008 10:14:42 AM

I think its important to remember, as a science teacher and as a scientist, that there is really no such thing as the "Scientific Method". It is not some agreed-upon process that has been set forth for all scientists to follow-- quite the opposite. The Scientific Method was created as a way to streamline and organize experiments, but is in no way the be-all, end-all of science. In fact, most scientific discoveries come about through no method resembling the Scientific Method. More often than not, it looks more like a design problem-- a group of people working to solve some sort of problem or question. The "trial and error", "revise and retry" process is much more like the genuine process of scientific discovery. I think that for the students, because there is no "hypothesis" that they have to prove or disprove, feel more freedom to truly explore with the design process.

Posted By: Karen Lennan
On: 12/15/2008 9:18:58 AM

Although I am not a science teacher, I tend to agree on the conversation surrounding the scientific method. It reminded me of how theories are often treated as fact in education, and even used to design policies. For example, take "Maslow's theory" --it is just a theory, and has been disproven many times, like in the concentration camps mothers sacrificed their own food portions to give to their children, etc. People can do selfless things without having what was deemed basic needs met first. Sometimes a person needs to know there is justice or fairness before agreeing to other things. At any rate, it is just a theory--not fact.

Posted By: Catherine Macaulay
On: 12/29/2008 1:26:38 PM

I teach elementary school science and I tend to steer away from using the phrase "scientific method" because I feel this can cripple creativity which is really what science is based on. Instead we call the scientific method, "Thinking Like a Scientist" or "Scientific Habits of Mind." In this way, incorporating the design process becomes quite natural.