Brought to you from the folks at LabLearner (intended for grades PreK-8), Exploration21 is a hands-on science education program for high schools!

Three days out of a seven-day cycle are spent in a lab that is supplied with scientific instrumentation and materials provided by Exploration21. All data from experiments are collected, analyzed, and reported digitally. There is no textbook and all materials and information students need to experience science first-hand, including data they themselves obtained in lab, are at their fingertips on any computer, iPad, or smartphone. 

Exploration21 was developed by Cognitive Learning Systems, the same group that developed and disseminates the LabLearner PreK-8 science education system to elementary and middle schools across the country.

For more information please go to the Exploration21 “Test Drive” site at exploration21.com/ex21intro. You may also contact an Exploration21 representative at 1.877.LEARN78 to learn more!

LabLearner students develop 21st century skills that include critical thinking, problem solving, communication, and collaboration skills while engaging in LabLearner hands-on experiments. The LabLearner atmosphere promotes student creativity and innovation. It also develops essential communication and collaboration skills that are endemic to the CCSS initiative.

We’ve developed a web page that explains how LabLearner exceeds current CCSS in math and ELA, and how we are ahead of the game when it comes to impending science standards! Hint: If you already have LabLearner, you won’t have to change a thing!

Click here to read more!

Tadpoles, sometimes referred to as polliwogs, are the aquatic larval form of amphibians, such as frogs. As a child, I spent countless warm summer hours watching them in shallow Michigan ponds in the woods near my house. I recall first seeing the massive, sticky egg clusters near the pond’s edge.

As days passed I saw movement inside the transparent eggs until finally, nearly all at once, the small, fish-like tadpoles emerged. They swam (more like wiggled) and swarmed by the thousands in the water. They were fun to play with and extremely easy to catch! A single sweep of an open Mason jar would yield a dozen captives.

I then had two options… watch the tadpoles swim around in the jar for awhile and then pour them back, or take them home for the evening and return them, unharmed, the next day. Either way, they provided unending curiosity and entertainment.

The most amazing thing about the tadpoles was that they continually changed.

As time pasted, the free-swimming, fish-like tadpoles did something very strange. They sprouted legs! Hind legs first, if I recall, then front legs. Can you imagine sprouting legs and arms? Fascinating!

But there was something else. After gaining appendages, the tadpoles lost their tails and became frogs, and then could hop out of the water. Thousands of tiny frogs appeared in the mud and grass around the pond. Try to catch them and they would hop back into the water and quickly dart away. The frogs became nearly impossible to catch once they escaped into the pond.

Perhaps it can be ascribed to the brevity of the childhood attention span, or perhaps it was the beginning of sandlot baseball and other summer activities, but that was pretty much the end of the amphibian-watching season. Nonetheless, one question remained on my mind and was never resolved… what happened to the tadpole tails? I searched for, but never found, a single tadpole tail. Where did they go when the tadpoles lost them? It was pretty much a mystery at the time and remained so long after. School started and the subject was forgotten.

Formal Science Education

A decade passed. As an eighteen-year-old college freshman, I sat one evening in the library and studied my biology lecture notes and read an assigned section about cellular organelles in a Biology textbook. I read about lysosomes. With my yellow highlighter in hand, I learned that these small sub-cellular structures contained dozens of strong digestive enzymes, called hydrolases. The hydrolases could breakdown almost anything they came in contact with. I took copious notes and highlighted everything. Materials brought into the cell, such as small food particles, would come in contact with the lysosomes and the hydrolases digested the food. The cell then used the breakdown products for energy and growth.

It might have ended there, with a hundred other biological facts committed to highlighting and memory. However, there was one additional point about lysosomes that the textbook mentioned… lysosomes were thought to be involved in morphogenesis, for example, in the degradation of tadpole tails and the webbing between the fingers in human embryos. I dropped my highlighter.

Minds Unleashed

Tadpole tails and lysosomal hydrolases, of course! The tails didn’t drop off; they were absorbed. The materials that made up the tadpole tails were broken down and reused to make legs… perfect! Somehow, the tadpole tail cells simply knew when it was time for their lysosomes to spill their powerful hydrolases into their own cytoplasm and destroy themselves. Everything seemed to make sense. Biology was wonderful. There was an answer for everything. A great feeling of confidence was upon me.

Unfortunately, that wonderful feeling of understanding lasted only a few peaceful moments. How did the lysosomes know they were in tadpole tail cells? How did the lysosomes know it was time and that the tail was no longer needed? What if tadpole brain cell lysosomes mistakenly thought they were in tadpole tail cells instead and dumped their nasty hydrolases into the neurons of the growing brain? What if… What about…

Nothing else I was studying seemed as interesting to me as lysosomes. I read way more about the subject than my courses warranted. Eventually, I knew a lot, but not everything. I chatted with a fellow biology student I often studied with. What if there was some way to make lysosomes in cancer cells think they were in a tadpole tail cell that was ready to be destroyed? Wouldn’t that kill the cancer cells?

We both read more. We read all we could find. Our ideas flourished. One idea sprang from another.  We read and read and talked and talked. Then we came to a point I had never experienced before. It was inevitable, but nonetheless painful. Call it a wall. A wall that I would become familiar with as my career in science progressed. A wall that no scientist can ever avoid. That wall represented not just the limit of what I personally knew about the subject of lysosomes, but it was, in reality, the limit of what ANYONE knew about the subject at the time! Somehow, we were confident, controlling lysosomes could cure cancer. But we weren’t sure of how. And the details we needed to proceed in our thinking simply did not exist. It seemed so important, but it was out of our hands. The questions we asked could only be answered by new research. We were eighteen-year-old freshmen. We had many other classes to take and pass before we would be in a position to have a lab and write research grants and make new discoveries about lysosomes and cancer on our own. With significant disappointment, we moved on.

Until this day, the potential of controlling lysosome activity in cancer cells is still a topic of research and some discussion. In addition, there are now approaches to understanding the biology of cancer and its treatment that were not even conceivable back in my undergraduate days.  I would eventually do some very limited research in my own laboratory, funded by the American Cancer Society, involving cancer drugs and another organelle, mitochondria, rather than lysosomes. And finally, now that I have “left the bench,” I am once again relegated to reading about the topic and rooting for the researchers’ success.

Tadpole Tails: A Lesson for Science Education

Let’s consider these events in terms of our approach to K-12 science education. What can we learn from this story?

Clearly, scientific concepts can develop over a long period of time. They can lead anywhere, perhaps into areas of study only remotely related to the original concept. Further, at any point in the development of a scientific concept, one does not necessarily know the ultimate end or destination of the conceptual journey. Likely, there is no end to the journey!

As children encounter classroom science and the world around them, countless questions emerge. Some will be answered at a later point in their experiences, and some may not. Some questions simply have no answers yet. Young students are much more than capable of asking simple questions that would trip up experts in the field. What child hasn’t asked, “Will time ever end?” or “Can we go backwards in time?” for example.

There is great value in introducing children to scientific concepts and phenomena that they might not be able to fully understand at the time. The introduction can serve to pique their imagination and keep their eyes open for answers. In the same way that a DEER CROSSING sign keeps our focus more intently on certain stretches of road and more likely to spot a deer and react quickly, incompletely understood scientific phenomena and unresolved questions keep a student’s focus on future relationships and potential answers.

At its best, a so-called ‘spiraling’ science curriculum organizes a series of observations and information that matures with educational and life experiences. This way, when an answer finally becomes clear to the student, perhaps months or even years later, it contains depth and meaning that would be impossible to acquire through a brief encounter or a canned explanation. Science is a process of continual exploration; in the lab, classroom, and at the edge of a pond. Scientific concepts reoccur repeatedly over time, often in seemingly unrelated contexts, and help define the wonderfully ornate web of relationships in the world around us.

The problem is that we too often view the classroom as an entirely different environment than the world outside and beyond its borders. In the real world, one rarely succeeds individually. Humans generally function in groups of mixed abilities and strengths. In fact, organization and communication have been the hallmark of human evolution and our species’ remarkable success. When a real group is faced with a problem, the members work together to find solutions. Depending on the specific problem at hand, one or another member of the group takes the lead, while other members contribute according to their talents and abilities. That’s how mankind has got this far. That’s how companies profit and nations prosper.

Students can be taught to learn in small groups as well. Stronger students may help weaker students in the group so that the performance of the team as a whole is enhanced. In the classroom, such an arrangement accomplishes many things. Students that find the material challenging have the opportunity to receive added instruction and guidance from peers within the group; individuals of similar age, sharing similar perspectives. Such instruction serves the team as a whole because with increased understanding comes additional, higher level questions and subsequent discussion. The stronger students, on the other hand, gain the invaluable experience of explaining what they have recently learned to a colleague. From a cognitive perspective, such reteaching of key information greatly strengthens the content understanding of the student “teacher”. In a well-structured group, the stronger students may even fluctuate based on the specific content base and skill sets required to solve a specific problem. Thus, a student challenged in one area may take on a leadership role in another.

A predictable objection to this mechanism of class management through group problem solving activities, is that it holds back the best students as they labor to carry their less gifted peers. They could use this extra time to learn additional material on their own. This is a fallacy based on the belief, largely reinforced by voluminous academic standards, that covering more information is always better. It is not. Understanding and remembering and applying more information is better. In the group learning approach, both the stronger learners and the weaker learners end up with a greater understanding of the subject. Each student also learns the most valuable lesson of all; how to work efficiently with others and solve problems as a group. That is, after all, what the real world is all about, isn’t it?

This solution is not expensive and takes only thought and devotion by the adult community surrounding the students – the school administrators, teachers, and parents. We have used this approach to obtain remarkable results in hands-on science instruction with our LabLearner program. It takes nothing away from student individuality or self-reliance and rewards students for treating each other with dignity and respect.

In a previous blog, we discussed the neurocognitive aspects of assessments and testing. In that discussion, we concluded with a number of recommendations based on cognitive science considerations, one of which was:

“Use assessment results as an integral component of a student’s instruction, rather than exclusively as a measure of success or failure. Use assessment results to direct future instruction and/or remediation of individual students.”

In LabLearner’s 9th grade Exploration21 high school science course, students study the causes of the 2010 British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil spill at the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. The BP tragedy provides an excellent opportunity for students to study scientific concepts ranging from physics to life science in a timely and newsworthy context. Early in the semester, the following graded homework problem was assigned:

“The density of seawater at the Macondo wellhead is 1,050 kg/m3. Using the formula p = ρgh, calculate the hydrostatic pressure at the Macondo wellhead.”

You do not need to be a physicist or petroleum oil expert to understand the point here, so read on!

Students had previously successfully completed hydrostatic pressure calculations a number of times using the equation:

p = ρgh

Where:

p = hydrostatic pressure (what they need to solve for here)
ρ = water density (given in the problem at 1,050 kg/m3)
g = gravity (the 9.8 m/s2 well-known constant)
h = depth of water (in meters)

Therefore, to answer the question correctly, the students simply needed to multiply the density (1,050 kg/m3) times the gravitational constant (9.8 ms2) times the depth (in meters m) of the wellhead. This is a simple multiplication that they had done many times before. Few, if any, of the students were able to answer the question. Teachers were contacted by parents, including several holding engineering degrees, indicating that the homework question was unanswerable.

Was this a “trick” question? Actually, it was thought out in detail and got the exact response that we wished. Remember, this was a graded homework problem. All a student needed to do was to open any search engine and search, “depth of macondo well”! They would have found dozens of reputable websites that clearly stated that the Macondo wellhead is something about 1,500 m deep. Thus:

p = ρgh

p = 1,050 kg/m3 X 9.8 m/s2 X 1,500 m = 15,435,000 kg/ms2

That’s it. Very simple. In fact, there were only three homework questions assigned, of which this was the third. The first two gave the density, gravitational constant, and water depth and had the students simply plug in and multiply. The only thing the third, “unanswerable” question lacked was one of the three variables, depth.

This experience suggests that students do not think in terms of solving problems. Rather, they think in terms of reproducing operations. They want to mimic steps they have committed to memory without thinking too hard about it. Even though some may even have concluded, “I need to know the depth of the well,” they were willing to believe that since the depth was not given, the question was unanswerable. Not one student of nearly 200 asked themselves, “How can I find the depth of the Macondo well?” Interesting, because nearly all of these very same students could easily jump on the Internet to find out when a certain football game will be televised, or to get directions to a clothing store, or find the state age requirement for a driver’s license or learner’s permit.

For the most part, students have concluded that schoolwork exists entirely outside the realm of reality. It is disconnected. When they enter the school building in the morning and are forced to shut off their cell phones, they go “offline” in their thinking as well.

We want our students to think and solve problems. This is why we formulated the hydrostatic pressure homework question as we did. We could have told them to find the wellhead depth on the Internet. That could even have been the previous question. However, had we done so, we would have run the risk of having to tell them exactly what to search for and when to search for it in the future as well. We knew that the first time we didn’t explicitly tell them when to consult the Internet and what to search for, we would hear, “we were not told to search for this information.” They would never focus on solving the problem rather than reproducing operations.

Therefore, we used an assessment as an integral component of a student’s instruction, rather than exclusively as a measure of success or failure. We used assessment to direct instruction. Notice the term exclusively above. In the Macondo Well example we have been discussing, every student that did not answer the hydrostatic pressure correctly lost those points. Assessment, even if used as an instructional tactic, must nonetheless have “teeth.” In the given example, what student (or parent for that matter) involved in the Macondo Well homework experience would conclude that a future assigned question was “unanswerable”? With a single assessment problem, everyone learned that answers do not necessarily exist solely within the confines of a printed homework question, but are open to all of the existing avenues of information available to us in real life. The point is to solve the problem, not just provide an excuse for not being able to do so. Assessments can be very powerful teaching tools indeed!

Dear reader: Please feel free to respond to this post and provide additional scenarios in which you have successfully used assessment as an integral component of instruction. Don’t feel that you need restrict your example(s) to science instruction.

How can teachers communicate to parents what their students have learned during a hands-on science experiment?

Many teachers can attest to the enormous value of hands-on science because they witness how students learn and solve problems during hands-on experiments. There can be moments in a group experiment when students turn to their peers to formulate an idea or prediction and end up altering their thoughts/understanding on the spot as they perform the experiment.

Teachers observe students challenging themselves and their peers. Teachers have even observed how scientific hands-on problem solving augments students’ critical thinking skills outside the science classroom.

Sometimes it’s difficult for parents to gain an understanding of hands-on science learning because they have not had the opportunity to learn science under these conditions or to watch their students in this setting. How can teachers communicate their observations to parents? Also, how can parents probe and question their students to find out what they have learned in laboratory experiments? And how can the family study science together at home – even during supper at the kitchen table?

In the LabLearner video blog above, Professor Keith Verner, founder or LabLearner, visits a class of 8th grade students investigating a hands-on LabLearner experiment on heat transfer and the conservation of energy. Dr. Verner extends the concept with an ice cube experiment that can be discussed at the kitchen table.

Teachers: How do you communicate to parents how their students are developing scientific skills, science content knowledge, and critical thinking skills while doing hands-on experiments?

Parents: Please share your experiences regarding how you engage your students to determine how well they are learning and understanding science, particularly when participating in a hands-on science curriculum.

Several years ago, my colleague, Dr. Paul Eslinger, and I were asked to write a short piece about “high-stakes” testing in K-12 systems for The EducationPolicy and Leadership Center. At the time, Paul was a neuropsychologist that worked with patients suffering from various forms of cognitive impairments caused by a number of medical conditions ranging from accident-related head trauma to stroke and brain tumors, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia. At the same time, I was Chief of Developmental Pediatrics and Learning at the College of Medicine at Pennsylvania State University. It was at around this time, in 2000-2004, that I became interested in being able to translate basic and medical neurocognitive research to human learning with emphasis on how such information might be applied in classrooms.

The importance of “high stakes” testing came to the national forefront as a result of the push for annual improvement on such tests inherent in the then newly approved No Child Left Behind program. The following is an abbreviated portion of our discussion that will serve nicely as background for more specific discussions of assessment in science education in upcoming blogs.

Scientists Use Tests All the Time

Science performs many tests as it tries to understand the physical and biological principles that make up the world around us. Tests and analysis of test results, it might correctly be argued, are the indispensable tools of modern science. However, scientists know that each test is subject to artifacts involved in both the collection and interpretation of data. To help alleviate this unavoidable property of scientific investigation, researchers typically employ a variety of tests whenever possible. Multiple avenues of examination can function to expose anomalous results of a particular test or, even better, confirm results through several different strategies of analysis. How many tests are enough to be confident of a given physical or biological phenomena? Simply put, one can never be too confident. The more independent lines of evidence the better. Further, the greater the importance of a particular scientific investigation – the greater the significance of the findings – the more independent tests and analysis are appropriate. Nowhere is this point more important than in fields of investigation in which tests directly impact humans, such as the medical and clinical sciences. Few diagnoses rely on a single test of any kind. The physical examination is coupled with multiple laboratory test results, radiological imaging studies, second opinions by independent experts and so on, in order to achieve convergence of results and consensus of findings. In this very important, ‘high stakes’ endeavor of human health and welfare, no single test, or series of tests for that matter, is given simply to determine if the patient or doctor passes or fails! Instead, standardized tests provide one means of ascertaining the physical state of an individual at a given moment in time but must be combined with other assessments in order to be a sensitive and specific guide for diagnosing a disorder. Then, some of the same tests are used again to evaluate progress, treatment effectiveness and demonstrate the ultimate cure.

Clearly, this discussion of the prudent use of converging and discriminating tests and exams in scientific investigation and medical practice has some relevance when we discuss high stakes testing in the basic education environment. If science and medicine had chosen, instead, to search for and use a single test to assess all aspects of illness and individuals, with no attempt to independently confirm its validity and predictive value, we would likely have not progressed much over the years.

Declarative and Procedural Memory

The brain has several inter-related memory systems. Two of the most important for education are declarative and procedural memory. Declarative memory refers to the conscious recollection of facts, knowledge, experiences, and events. This system mediates the general, specific and personal aspects of declarative knowledge that are acquired through intentional learning.

In contrast, procedural memory refers to sensory-motor and skill-based learning (e.g., knowledge of how to ride a bike, play the piano, use a microscope, etc.), acquired through direct experience. Procedural memory does not require explicit recollection of initial learning experiences but rather provides the accumulated benefits of hands-on learning and knowledge. Clearly, this critical memory system is not assessed well, if at all, on standardized tests.

Learning and Consolidation Processes

Learning and consolidation processes are closely linked to children’s abilities to both register and retain new information and experiences. While key aspects of learning are better understood (e.g., being prepared, having an overview, paying attention, using and manipulating new information in interesting ways, etc.), consolidation is less clear to many educators. Consolidation is the process responsible for transferring new information from short-term to long-term memory for later retrieval (see figure, below).

Information Processing Model

As new information must be “processed” for this to happen, numerous teaching approaches are directed at increasing the amount of attention and processing that are applied. That is, appealing to students’ natural interests, previous knowledge, and “higher order” thinking when consolidating new information, will increase the amount of processing the new material receives. On the other hand, simple memorization requires far less processing and little critical thinking. The use of externalizations, such as “hands-on” and “inquiry-based” activities may be particularly beneficial for increasing information processing.

Consolidation is a complex process in which the brain converts new material from fleeting traces of information to long-term memories. These are then stored in more stable form with existing knowledge in brain areas called association cortices. New information begins this process by entering the brain as new input from various stimuli. Brain structures involved at this level include the major senses of touch (somatosensory cortex), sound (auditory cortex) and sight (visual cortex).

This multi-modal information is then ready for frontal lobe analysis where executive function helps to filter, compare and interweave it with existing information, already present in long-term storage (Click here to learn more about the Information Processing Model). Thus, sensory-perceptual traces must be “held” onto mentally until the consolidation processes are completed. The overall process of holding onto new information while comparing it to existing information is sometimes referred to as working memory.

Once consolidated, long-term storage of memories is organized into knowledge structures throughout the various association cortices for later retrieval. Thus, students store information in a variety of places in the brain. Further, students retrieve stored information in different ways, largely dependent upon the manner in which the information was initially stored and the way they are asked to retrieve it. Lists of facts, names, dates, geographical locations and so on, without developed meaning, may be difficult to retrieve in isolation – particularly as time passes. Similar information and facts that are more critically developed by the teacher and “deeply processed” by the student will be easier to recall from memory and, more importantly, will be available for more in-depth future thinking. A student’s ability to “transfer” learned martial to new situations and circumstances is a good indication of how well they actually know and understand the material. It is difficult for any single standardized test to assess a student’s ability to recall and use information located in all of the many brain structures where long-term memories are stored.

The Interrelationships Among Learning, Intelligence, and Executive Function

Critical thinking and problem solving, perhaps surprisingly, are not really measured through standardized tests of intelligence, specific content knowledge, and even operational skills and judgment when they are devoid of appropriate, real-life contexts. This has been demonstrated through numerous kinds of studies in child development and neuropsychology. For example, Eslinger and Damasio (1985) described a patient who retained exceptional intellectual, reasoning, operational skill, and even judgment capacities after a brain tumor, as long as he was assessed with paper and pencil types of measures (e.g., who was president during the civil war….why do we have child labor laws….what is the basis for the federal taxation system, etc.). All of these measures were ‘out of context’ and not related to any real-life tasks or situations. His scores were in the superior range. However, in any real-life settings, this person could not organize his work, formulate and follow a step-by-step plan to complete an assignment, look ahead and anticipate possibilities, and accurately monitor his own progress. In short, his executive function was impaired.

In child development and throughout adulthood, intelligence and executive function do not go hand in hand. There are virtually no correlations between measures of intelligence (encompassing specific content knowledge, some problem solving skills and general judgment) and measures of executive function (encompassing capacities for planning, organization, working memory, anticipation, and self-monitoring (Archibald and Kerns, 1999; Ardila, 1999; Crinella and Yu, 2000; Eslinger and Damasio, 1985; Welsh et al., 1991)). Furthermore, while intelligence and standardized paper and pencil tests may adequately assess “what” a child knows, executive function is thought to underlie the “how” of learning and knowledge, such as: how Gettysburg was related to the outcome of the Civil War and how energy is related to motion.

Fortunately, executive function is a teachable skill that students can acquire and is related to every content area they study (Eslinger, 1997). Executive function is demonstrated through the process of critical thinking, how children go about problem solving (e.g., identifying and utilizing resources, formulating a plan, seeking feedback, improving upon their first attempt, etc.), and the product of those collective cognitive and behavioral processes.

Conclusions

The utility of employing a single, annual, formalized test to ascertain student achievement will inescapably be linked to the ability of that test to assess all that we view as important in the education of a child. This is no small challenge. As discussed above, an important role of our frontal lobe is the phenomena know as “executive function”. Executive function is intimately involved in our ability to think critically, solve problems, plan for the future, and follow and modify our plans as new situations arise, while keeping our initial goals in mind. These skills, one could argue, are at the very heart of what we would hope all educated citizens could do (Verner, 2002). While we may well demand that the development and cultivation of executive function be a priority accomplishment of public education, we cannot easily assess, through existing high stakes testing, whether or not it has actually done so. Furthermore, as discussed above, evidence actually suggests that there is little, if any, correlation between executive function and IQ, another cognitive parameter assessed through a formalized, paper and pencil test.

Recommendations for Student Assessments Based on Cognitive Science Considerations

• Use multiple assessment approaches in order to categorize an individual student’s many strengths and weaknesses. Do not use a single test.
• In addition to sit-down, “paper and pencil” exams, use testing approaches that can ascertain the student’s procedural knowledge (“how”) abilities.
• Include significant analysis of executive function capabilities in student assessments.
• Assure that recall of information from memory is connected as closely as possible to the mechanism by which it was committed to memory. Try to develop more valid links between instruction and assessment that capitalizes on the benefits of contextual cues and setting.
• Ideally, try to use assessment results as an integral component of a student’s instruction, rather than exclusively as a measure of success or failure. Use assessment results to direct future instruction and/or remediation of individual students.
• When using tests in the analysis of performance of teachers, schools or school districts, take into account the natural range of student abilities and accentuate longitudinal, multiple parameter analysis as opposed to single, high stakes exams. Just as it is difficult to assess an individual student’s overall success by a single test at a single point in time, it is also difficult assess the success of an entire educational system by the same measure.
• Given the political and financial importance associated with high stakes testing to school districts, policy makers should be aware of potential negative impacts of such tests on education. The justifiable desire to assure and monitor quality education for all children in the basic education system may inadvertently result in undesirable instructional strategies such as:

1. “Teaching to the test” (which may ultimately lead to less content and more test-taking instruction),
2.  Minimizing the importance of procedural skills because they will not be tested on formalized tests (such as correctly operating scientific instruments, reciting poetry, participating in academic debates, drawing a schematic of a model, and so on.),
3. Minimizing the development of executive function abilities as these are not readily assessed by standardized tests,
4. Diminishing the joy and respect for learning and the student’s desire to continue school through graduation and beyond.

Finally, the desire to assure and monitor quality education for all children is commendable. However, it is also critical enough to employ frequent analysis using multiple forms of testing, with the intention of using results to improve the education of individual students and the instructional strategies of local educational systems. In upcoming Blogs we will begin to discuss, much more specifically, how assessments can be used as an integral component of science education and a driving force behind the development of critical thinking skills.

References

Archibald, S.J., Kerns, K.A. (1999). Identification and description of new tests of executive functioning in children. Child Neuropsychology 5: 115-129.

Ardila, A. (1999). A neuropsychological approach to intelligence. Neuropsychology Review 9: 117-136.

Crinella, F.M., Yu, J. (2000). Brain mechanisms and intelligence. Psychometric g and executive function. Intelligence 27: 299-327.

Eslinger, P.J. (1997). Brain development and learning. Basic Education, 41, 6-8.

Eslinger, P.J., Damasio, A.R. (1985). Severe disturbance of higher cognition after bilateral frontal lobe ablation: Patient EVR. Neurology, 35, 1731-41.

Verner, K. (2001). Connections in the Classroom: Brain-Based Learning. In Basic Education. 45: 3-7.

Verner, K. (2002). Transcending the Status Quo:Scientists and school educators need to join forces to raise student proficiency in science. HHMI Bulletin.

Welsh, M.C., Pennington, B.F., Groisser, D.B. (1991). A normative developmental study of executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental Neuropsychology 7: 131-149.

The title of this blog, Understanding the Scientific Method Improves Science Fair Projects, is also a hypothesis. We will discuss how to test it below.

While tremendous emphasis is placed on the concept of scientific hypotheses in precollege science education, there is an amazingly wide variety of interpretations of what exactly they are and how to use them. Even the scientific method itself can be found to differ slightly from reference to reference on an Internet search. This is probably reasonable, since each practicing scientist has her/his own view of these matters and conducts their original scientific investigations with a unique style. There are undoubtedly many different legitimate ways of considering the scientific method. However, for students in the K-12 system, it is best to settle upon a given approach and stick to it, rather than introducing variations from grade level to grade level.

At the heart of the scientific method is the ability to state a hypothesis, make testable predictions based on the hypothesis, and identify the important variables. As you will see below, we have chosen a method of approaching the issue of hypothesis, prediction, and variables with a two step, rather automatized, system that many teachers and students we have worked with have found useful.  First, the hypothesis is presented as a simple statement. Second, a prediction is constructed in which the hypothesis and the independent and dependent variables are embedded in an “If > then” formulation. It is quite easy to learn.

Observations

One of the key features of modern experimental science is that an idea must always be tested. Testing an idea means that someone has an hypothesis and then goes about testing his or her prediction about the hypothesis by exploring which variables need to be considered. To do this, we also need to consider why someone would be making a hypothesis or prediction in the first place. Usually, this occurs because someone makes an observation and wants to explain or understand it further.

What is an observation and what might someone observe? Think about observations as things you notice about the system you are studying. For example, what are its parts, why is it of interest, what are potential variables? Most people make observations about phenomena they experience or about data they view from an event. It’s then almost inevitable that someone asks how the thing he or she observes (one variable) is related to something else he/she observes (other variables). That person may also question what might happen if he/she begins to make changes in the variables.

Let’s take an example and assume someone was observing a phenomenon such as the construction of a circuit. They may observe that a circuit includes batteries, wires, and resistors and that an electrical current travels through the circuit. The resistors and other components provide resistance to the flow of electrical current. The batteries provide a source of voltage for the circuit. (Note: It is not necessary to understand the concept of a circuit, resistance, or voltage at this time, we are only using circuits as an example.)

Questions that result from these observations about circuits might be:

• What would happen if the voltage of the circuit changed?
• Does a change in the voltage produce a change in the current of the circuit?
• Do changes in resistors change the current in a circuit?

Variables

The questions above can help us to determine the variables of an experiment. One way to think about variables is to consider how different properties, pieces of data, or observations are related to each other. If we take the last two questions above, we can highlight the variables:

• Does a change in the voltage produce a change in the current of the circuit?

The variables are voltage and current.

• Do changes in resistors change the current in a circuit?

The variables are resistors and current.

Hypotheses and Predictions

Hypotheses and predictions are often ways to propose and test a relationship between variables. A hypothesis is a statement, NOT a question about observations or the relationship between variables. For example, from our observations and questions above, one hypothesis might be: Current is related to resistance. Notice that this is a simple statement.

A prediction is a statement that presents the relationship between variables in a hypothesis in a way that can be tested. One easy way to think about predictions is to consider them as “If-then” statements that include the hypothesis.

Let’s take our hypothesis from above as an example. Using that hypothesis, one prediction might be: If current is related to resistance, then changing the current would change the resistance.

Putting It All Together

Now that we’ve looked at variables, hypotheses, and predictions individually, let’s try to see if we can identify each of these when they are put together. The paragraph below describes a situation in which a girl made some observations and then created an experiment to test her observations.

Julia had a pet lizard. She observed that it did not feel the same temperature all of the time. She thought that the lizard’s body temperature is directly related to the air temperature. Julia proposed that if the lizard’s body temperature is directly related to the air temperature, then increasing the air temperature will increase the lizard’s body temperature.

Let’s see if you can identify the variables, hypothesis, and prediction in this example. Take a moment to reread the paragraph above. Then look below to find the answers. In the paragraph below, the hypothesis is italicized; the variables are in bold, and the prediction is underlined.

Julia had a pet lizard. She observed that it did not feel the same temperature all of the time. She thought that the lizard’s body temperature is directly related to the air temperature. Julia proposed that if the lizard’s body temperature is directly related to the air temperature, then increasing the air temperature will increase the lizard’s body temperature.

Julia asked her Mom for help. They placed the lizard in cages of different temperatures for a day and then measured its body temperature. The table below shows the data.

Look at the data. You should see that as the air temperature increased, the body temperature of the lizard increased. This suggests that Julia’s prediction was true. She predicted that increasing the air temperature would increase the lizard’s body temperature. The data from the table is consistent with this prediction.

In addition, Julia’s hypothesis was proven by her results. The body temperature of the lizard is directly related to the air temperature.

Back to the Beginning (Hypothetical Experiment Only: Don’t Perform with Your Class!) 

Now we can get back to the title of this blog and apply what we have learned about hypotheses, predictions, and variables to the issue of the scientific method and science fair projects.

Hypothesis: Understanding the Scientific Method Improves Science Fair Projects

Prediction: If understanding the scientific method improves science fair projects, then teaching students the scientific method will improve the quality of their science fair projects.

Variables: 1) learning the scientific method and 2) science fair performance

Experiment: Fifteen students (experimental group) were thoroughly taught the scientific method with emphasis on what a hypothesis, prediction, and variables are and how to use them. Another fifteen students (control group) were not taught the scientific method. Students were randomly assigned to the two groups. Both groups prepared science fair projects. At the science fair, judges rated all 30 of the projects on a scale of 1 (poor quality) to 10 (high quality). After the fair, an average score was calculated for both the experimental and control groups of contestants. The following are samples of potential results that could be obtained from this experiment:

Results – Scenario One:

Results – Scenario Two:

Results – Scenario Three:

Consider the three different types of results presented in the three scenarios above and the likely conclusions that may be drawn from them:

In Scenario One, the group that was taught the scientific method (experimental group) scored better on their science fair projects, on average, than the group that was not taught the scientific method (control group). This scenario agrees with the prediction and tends to support the original hypothesis. The hypothesis would be correct.

In Scenario Two, the experimental group scored lower on their science fair projects, on average, than the control group. This scenario disagrees with the prediction and therefore does not support the original hypothesis. The hypothesis would be wrong.

In Scenario Three, the experimental group and the control group scored about the same. This scenario does not agree with the prediction and does not support the original hypothesis. The hypothesis would therefore be wrong again.

Based on the three potential outcomes of the experiment we see that two of the three outcomes (Scenarios Two and Three) suggest that the original hypothesis is likely incorrect. Only one of the potential results (Scenario One) agrees with the prediction and supports the original hypothesis!

This is a good experiment because regardless of the results we will learn something about the involvement of understanding the scientific method on science fair performance.

Summary

Hypotheses, predictions, and variables are important because they present a way to think about, test, and potentially solve a problem or answer a question. Whether you are conducting experiments to determine causes of an oil spill, factors involved in increasing the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, or the effect of certain velocities of impact on human brain concussions, understanding the relationship between hypotheses, predictions, and variables can help you comprehend and apply your data.

As most educators are aware, there is a National Science Education Standards document that has been in use since its publication in 1996 (left). It was written with extensive input from many individuals from a wide range of scientific and educational disciplines. It was strongly supported through efforts of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequently, the National Science Education Standards document was used as a framework for many of the individual state science standards that followed.

The formulation of the various state science standards was a monumental task that reflected the unique characteristics of the individual states while incorporating the National Science Education Standards to varying degrees. Therefore, as we move forward with a discussion of the newly published A Framework for K-12 Science Education (lower left), lets remember that it has been just over a decade since the last major effort to reform science education was conducted on a national level and far more recently on the part of many states.

From LabLearner’s perspective, both the new Framework document and the National Science Education Standards are consistent with our philosophy and approach. As discussed in previous posts, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for both ELA and Math are easily aligned to our curriculum. The new NRC Framework is also wonderfully consistent with LabLearner’s Conceptual Themes.

NCR Framework Cross-Cutting Concepts:

•     Patterns
•     Cause and Effect: Mechanism and Explanation
•     Scale, Proportion, and Quantity
•     Systems and System Models
•     Energy Flow and Matter: Flows, Cycles, and Conservation
•     Structure and Function
•     Stability and Change

LabLearner Matrix: Click the image to enlarge

Creating New Science Standards

When contemplating a massive change, like the formulation and implementation of a whole new set of science standards for the entire nation, we must ask ourselves two questions:

First, why did the last attempt fail? That is, specifically, why is it necessary to write new science standards and what, specifically, was wrong with the last rendition of science standards that makes them so inadequate in moving forward that the an entirely new investment is now required?  What, specifically, was wrong with the National Science Education Standards published in 1996?

Second, does the new attempt directly address each and every one of the issues identified in the first question? If not, we are likely fooling ourselves into believing that new terminology, reorganized lists of goals, new names and faces, and a new spin will succeed where the last attempt failed. Let’s examine both of these important questions in a bit more detail.

Why did the last attempt fail?

We only have public documents to tell us what serious and comprehensive analysis of the previous science standards was performed. What studies were conducted to address specific aspects of the 1996 standards and what proof exists of their shortcomings. Granted, there may have been discussions in the initial phases of the planning of new directions in science standards that the general public was not privy to. However, given the impending investment required to rewrite the K-12 science standards and the ultimate hope that they will be embraced by the hundreds of thousands of K-12 teachers that will need to alter their lessons to teach them, this information should be “up front” and easily available.

If the answer to the question, “why didn’t it work last time”, is anything related to the type or quality of the people in charge, look out! This is a sign that new ideas and solutions may be few and far between in the new approach and that a great amount of time and resources may be invested simply to recognize or emplace a new ruling class of bureaucrats. While clothing design, music, and technology change rapidly, good ideas have a way of outlasting trends.

If the answer to the question, “why didn’t it work last time”, is anything related to the type or quality of the technology now available, look out! It is fair to assert that bad ideas don’t automatically become brilliant ones simply because they employ the latest technology. Depending on how they are used, Smart Boards can be nothing more than expensive projector screens. Depending on how they are used, iPads can be nothing more than expensive spiral notebooks. The point is that it is better to project good ideas on a painted wall than present poor ideas in high definition.

Does the new attempt directly address each and every one of the issues identified above?

It may be clear from the above discussion that we do not necessarily have reason to believe that a thoughtful and comprehensive discussion is currently available regarding the specific inadequacies of the 1996 national science standards document. Why is this an issue?

If we wish to reform science education, we need to focus on results and avoid fixating on the reformation process itself. That is to say, simply rewriting standards and not addressing real problems in the educational delivery system is likely to be an expensive waste of a very considerable amount of time. We do not need to keep administrators in the state and federal departments of education busy. We do not need to again tap the scientific expertise of our university professors and corporate scientists if the solution to improved K-12 science education is not a science-content issue in the first place. We don’t think it is.

In our opinion, there are three issues that need to be addressed to reform science education in this country:.

1. Curricula that is practical and reflects human neurocognitive processes
2. Adequate authentic scientific facilities and materials
3. Teacher training and commitment

Each of these points deserves much further discussion, but there are some general questions we may briefly ask ourselves. If teacher training is an issue that could impact the success of science education reform, what are we planning on doing to resolve the situation as quickly as possible? What about pre-service student teachers? Are we confident that the next generation of teachers will be better prepared to confidently handle the science content required to train their students to think scientifically? What about science supplies and equipment? Do our K-12 schools have facilities for serious hands-on science instruction? And, once again, are our teachers prepared to utilize these new resources and teach in this new and unfamiliar style?

One of the significant, exciting, and supportable aspects of the CCSS initiative, as reflected in the National Research Council Framework document, is the commitment to finally recognize and utilize the neurocognitive power of core themes (“cross-cutting concepts”) that spiral up through the developmental years and grade levels, reemphasizing the relevance of basic ideas as they reoccur year after year in ever changing contexts. This is the correct and smart way to approach education. But are our educational systems prepared to do what is necessary to really exploit cross-cutting concepts? Can they be organized and disciplined enough to follow a 13-year schedule? Each teacher will need to play a part on a new kind of team. Individual classroom autonomy is not entirely consistent with the organization and collaboration required to track the developing human brain from grade level to grade level.

A Word About Motives and the Future of CCSS

On the CCSS website, an interesting question and answer is presented on the Frequently Asked Questions page:

Q: Is having common standards the first step toward nationalizing education?

A: No. The Common Core State Standards are part of a state-led effort to give all students the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. The federal government was not involved in the development of the standards. Individual states choose whether or not to adopt these standards.

This is a worrisome answer to a good question. The fact is that the federal government program, Race to the Top, is an Obama administration initiative that incentivizes state participation in the CCSS initiative through financial awards. As we write, some states are already choosing to opt out of the CCSS movement after considering the cost and distraction of implementing the initiative relative to the financial incentive offered by Race to the Top.

The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) has recently taken an instructive approach to the issue of the CCSS initiative. Quoting from the VDOE website:

“VDOE and the Board of Education are using the commonwealth’s established process for adopting and revising academic standards to incorporate content from the Common Core State Standards into the Standards of Learning (SOL). In doing so, the board and department are ensuring that expectations for teaching and learning in Virginia schools are comparable to, or in some instances exceed, those of the voluntary national standards.”

The “national standards” referred to at the end of this quote are the CCSS documents. Therefore, Virginia is not planning on abandoning its SOLs for ELA, Math, Science, etc. to comply with CCSS standards. Rather, they plan on using what good ideas the CCSS initiative may offer to amend or “upgrade” its existing state standards. This seems to be a very reasonable, practical, and economical approach that other states are likely to consider as well.

In our last blog we discussed the relationship between the teaching of math and the teaching of science, and these relationships in regards to Common Core State Standards (CCSS). One of the major points addressed was that, like the development of math skills, the science curriculum needs to be built in logical progressive steps. Basic concepts need to be mastered before more complex concepts can be developed upon them.

Turning to the common core English Language Arts (ELA) standards, which were introduced into many schools throughout the country for the 2011/12 academic year along with new math standards, we can draw very similar and instructive analogies between the science curriculum and the ELA curriculum.

There is a relatively universal acceptance that in acquiring and growing language arts skills, there is a standard developmental process. Babies begin by making sounds (cooing) prior to correctly pronouncing recognizable words. First words are single-word utterances composed of object words (nouns) or action words (verbs). Two-word utterances (yellow toy, dog bark, yucky food, and so on) precede more complex sentence construction. In reading, once again, there is generally accepted pedagogy that relies on a progressive building of new skills based on a foundation of mastered skills.

The science curriculum stands to learn much from the step-wise logic of the ELA curriculum. Presenting students with a scattering of science concepts during their K-8 years, without logical and scientifically sound relationships between them, is somewhat like presenting students with an exceedingly long vocabulary list and giving them nine years to memorize it! At best, most students would remember a few terms, spellings, and definitions related to science as they head off to high school. It would be a similar rational that to then increase our “standards” and “raise the bar” further, we could double the length of the vocabulary list. This shotgun method of science education inevitably leads to the “mile wide, inch deep” results so often criticized in the American educational system.

The science curriculum should follow the math and ELA example of a coordinated, logical sequence of conceptual steps. Each plateau of understanding should be the firm base for further construction. Underlying principles and rules should always be as important as vocabulary and concept definitions. Increasingly deep understanding of science should be accompanied with appropriately advanced quantitation and mathematics skills and application. Development of scientific expertise should also be accompanied by advanced communication skills.

Unique Relationships

It should be clear that K-8 science education stands much to gain by mirroring the multi-year, progressive formulations of the ELA curricula. In addition to this broad realization, there are several specific points to be made concerning science and ELA before turning to a direct correlation between the CCSS ELA standards and the LabLearner curriculum.

ELA Words vs. Science Words

An important point to consider is that scientific vocabulary is inordinately full of concept-rich words. In common language, for example, consider the words equipment and communism. Let’s consult Merriam-Webster:

• equipment: “the set of articles or physical resources serving to equip a person or thing”
• communism: “a theory advocating elimination of private property”

Both words are easily memorized. In fact, fewer words are used in the definition of communism than equipment. Yet few would argue that the concept of communism is considerably more complex than the concept of equipment. So complex is the concept of communism, that the value of such a simple definition alone is limited.

In science, much of the key vocabulary is of similar concept-rich meaning. Let’s take the term osmosis. Even the Merriam-Webster definition is something to be pondered:

osmosis: “movement of a solvent (as water) through a semipermeable membrane (as of a living cell) into a solution of higher solute concentration that tends to equalize the concentrations of solute on the two sides of the membrane”

There may even be some issue with understanding the definition of the terms used in this definition. Let’s underline the words that are likely to require further discussion in order to understand the definition of osmosis:

osmosis: “movement of a solvent (as water) through a semipermeable membrane (as of a living cell) into a solution of higher solute concentration that tends to equalize the concentrations of solute on the two sides of the membrane”

Other examples of similarly complex terms are easy to come by in science and include terms such as weathering, equilibrium, saturation, precipitate, absorption, magnification, volume, density, kinetic, conservation, energy, gravity, planetary motion, friction, rate, velocity, structure-function, miscibility, suspension, and pH. Each of these examples was selected because they are included in current state and federal elementary/middle school standards and ALL are covered in LabLearner by sixth grade. Also, most have common usage in the English language. However, this is almost always an issue when introducing young students to these words in a scientific context. For example, “I am tired, I don’t have much energy,” really can cause a problem when we wish to teach students that energy is a measurable entity that has units in joules!

The fundamental point is this… it is nearly useless to simply memorize science words! The definitions impart very little, if any, scientific understanding. Consequently, a curriculum based on memorization of scientific terms, concepts, and facts (all words), is similarly useless as well. A science curriculum requires a logical and spiraling sequence, integrated mathematics, and experimentation. Period.

Action Words, Verbs, and Experimentation

I know the definition of the verb swim. I can conjugate it: I swim, I swam, I have swum. However, if I fall overboard, I had better have an entirely different understanding of the word swim! In fact, if I only know the verb, swim, as a word, I drown!

We ended the last blog by stating, rather emphatically, that the science curriculum requires experimentation. That is because many of the verbs in the vocabulary of science are, in fact, skills. For example, measure, combine, equilibrate, determine, weigh, balance, and prepare are not just scientific verbs, they are skills. Defining a spring scale is not the same as knowing how to use a spring scale any more than knowing what a bicycle is opposed to knowing how to ride one. The science lab environment allows students to practice procedural skills that bring substance to science words for equipment and processes. Further, because nearly every piece of scientific equipment and apparatus is calibrated, the science laboratory gives students numbers! What’s more – the numbers are real, not bogus, end of the textbook chapter, story problem numbers. In science, the skill of obtaining accurate numbers in the lab is the first step to a calculation(s) being performed. The level of skill is directly related to the correctness of the final answer! When students are taught to understand this, the world of language, science, and math fold effortlessly, nearly instinctively into each other.

It Hasn’t Happened Until You Report It

Every budding science graduate student, medical student, and postdoctoral fellow understands this statement. No scientist is paid to do experiments. They are paid to write about their experiments.

While I was a tenured Professor of Pediatrics in the College of Medicine at The Pennsylvania State University, I began science and health education outreach work in local schools. We surveyed the medical faculty to get an idea of what our colleagues, all practicing medical scientists of one sort or another, felt was important in an excellent K-12 science education to become a successful practicing scientist. We asked, “What knowledge or skill do you believe is most important for a career in science?” The response was nearly unanimous: Writing, reading, and communicating were the most essential attributes of a successful scientist. Of course, math skills and specific science courses were on the list, but language arts was the clear winner.

Why be surprised? We constantly wrote grants to obtain the massive funds required to do our research and then wrote annual reports to keep them. In addition, everyone was working on one or more manuscripts for publication in a variety of international scientific journals. Publish or Perish. Pretty motivational!

Returning to somewhat less stressful halls of the elementary school, the science curriculum and the science lab in particular gives students the opportunity to use new vocabulary. A group of students working together on an experiment must communicate in the vocabulary of the experiment at hand. Mass, balance, and equilibrium, are not just words, they are real things. When they mix two chemicals and quickly record what happens into their lab books, terms describing colors, smells, textures, and sounds fly onto the page as situations change. Questions like, “How many grams of calcium carbonate did you add?” or “How long until the next data point?” are common utterances from fourth grade students during an experiment. No one needs to memorize the definition of a triple-beam balance, rather, they need to know exactly how to use it! The definition is obvious. A vocabulary test would be easy.

Soy un Científico

Perhaps not surprisingly, students that are learning English as a second language tend to enjoy and do rather well in the science laboratory. In the lab, much of the language is externalized. It’s right there. The test tube (that the student is holding) becomes warm (in her hand). The light bulb gets brighter or dimmer depending on the number of batteries connected. “Wow, that’s cold!” The words describe things that the student directly and immediately experiences with their own senses. Finally, the word blue is easy to learn when a dried splash of a blue-color chemical reaction performed in lab on a Tuesday morning persists on the cover of your lab book all semester!