from CFACT
David Wojcik
The vigilantes of the CO2 Alliance have been saying that we no longer teach the scientific method in public school science education curricula. This confuses me because the new rules for science education claim to teach children to think like scientists. I think kids would be overwhelmed by the scientific method.
I was wrong. With the help of some alliance experts, I investigated this strange situation and here are my basic findings.
In short, we teach only half the joy of the scientific method, as will be explained more fully below. This is an interesting formulation of possible hypotheses and models that could explain what we observe. The hard half, where these attempted explanations are evaluated and likely fail, is not taught.
Now, let's look at it in detail. It all has to do with so-called “standards,” which are actually state regulations that dictate what topics will be taught at each grade level. The push for state standards began about two decades ago because, while most states teach the same topics, they are often at different grade levels, which creates problems—for example, in textbooks.
The federal government pays states to adopt Common Core standards in math and English, but they leave science to the National Academy of Sciences. Agencies often do this in scientific matters.
In 2012, NAS developed a blueprint for science standards—the “Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas,” often referred to simply as the framework.
A large group of government personnel then formed a large working group to write standards that would fit into the framework. These are called Next Generation Science Standards, or NGSS. Today, 20 countries have officially adopted NGSS, and a further 29 countries have reportedly developed standards based on the framework. (The only one holding out is Florida State.)
This framework and the NGSS differ significantly from existing national science standards. These old standards teach scientific knowledge, essentially the basic facts of every major field of science. Electricity, battery construction, solar systems and more.
Some of these are still taught as core ideas, along with cross-cutting concepts such as cause and effect. But the method is what is called practice. These are supposed to be how scientists work, and they add engineering to the mix. Students work on projects instead of learning facts.
Here are the practices listed in the Framework (and NGSS):
1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)
2. Development and use of models
3. Plan and conduct investigations
4. Analyze and interpret data
5. Use math and computational thinking
6. Construct explanations (science) and design solutions (engineering)
7. Argument based on evidence
8. Obtain, evaluate and communicate information
Note that this list is essentially continuous. It ends with developing, justifying, and communicating an explanation.
There is nothing about testing, evaluating, or criticizing these interpretations. But this kind of critical evaluation is the essence of science. It distinguishes science from unbridled faith. This is at the heart of the scientific method, so the CO2 Alliance is absolutely right.
Then it gets really confusing because the framework actually has evaluation as a central activity. The practice checklist is box 3.1 in the framework. Just three pages later we find Figure 3.1, which looks like a diagrammatic version and is labeled “The three areas of activity of scientists and engineers.”
The central area is labeled “Evaluation” and lists “Argument, Criticism and Analysis” as its activities. Under the heading “Formulating Explanations” there is an arrow pointing directly to “Formulating Hypotheses”.
I don't know why the explanations (and models) for evaluating recommendations are not included in the list of practices. Maybe they just want to make science fun by avoiding the unpleasant parts. After all, progressives often object to grading students, and especially to failing them.
But for whatever reason, this framework and the NGSS only teach half the joy of the scientific method. The crucial part of merging assumptions with reality is not there. Therefore, they actually fail to teach scientists how to think and work.
I recommend doing a simple fix directly from the frame. NGSS and states simply add this activity to the list:
“Activity 9: Proposed models and explanations will be evaluated using analysis, criticism and evidential argument.”
Now we just need to spread it to 49 states.
Relevant
