Higher order thinking

Russell Tytler, March 28, 2004

There is a lot of focus currently on the notion of higher order thinking, particularly in
relation to the Middle Years concerns, focusing on engaging students in meaningful
learning. Terms such as the Thinking urriculum! are used to descri"e a school
focus on deeper le#el ideas. $igher order thinking is used as a term to descri"e a
num"er of related ideas, all essentially held to "e in contrast to rote learning,
learning of facts, superficial thinking etc. %chemes such &loom!s ta'onomy ha#e
"een used to order kno(ledge forms in a hierarchy, (ith information at the "ottom
)&loom called it kno(ledge! "ut the term tends to ha#e a (ider meaning these days*,
then comprehension, then higher le#els such as application, analysis, synthesis and
e#aluation. The three tiered intellect! uses similar terms, (ith higher order thinking
"eing associated (ith (ords such as interprets, analyses, reflects, e#aluates+.
,lso associated (ith higher le#el thinking are dimensions of creati#ity, or
di#ergent thinking. -mphasising, in science tasks, such things as creati#ity,
imagination, fle'i"ility all aim at de#eloping in students a capacity to think through
ideas and apply them to a range of conte'ts, to think outside the s.uare! and to think
critically.
$igher le#el thinking is also associated (ith in#estigati#e practices in science,
and (ith pro"lem sol#ing. %uch "eha#iours and kno(ledge as asking in#estiga"le
.uestions, designing in#estigations or measurement procedures, critically e#aluating
e#idence, thinking of (ays to test ideas etc. are all part of (hat (e (ould hope an
engaged and resourceful student to "e doing.
The first t(o %/% omponents of effecti#e teaching and learning are closely
related to higher le#el thinking. These are gi#en "elo(, (ith links to the science
education literature.
1. Encouraging students to actively engage with ideas and evidence
omponent 0 is a key characteristic of effecti#e teaching and learning. /t is linked
(ith a num"er of important ideas that appear in the science education research
literature, and in curriculum and inno#ation change pro1ects.
The key idea embodied in this Component is that real learning is an active process
that involves students being challenged, and challenging each other, rather than
accepting received wisdom and practicing its application. , predominant image
pro1ected "y this omponent is thus one of the acti#e, searching mind. The
underlying logic of this omponent is consistent (ith constructi#ist insights into
learning.
This does not in any (ay diminish, ho(e#er, the role of the teacher. /f anything
it makes teachers! roles more comple' and difficult, in asking them to encourage
students to e'press their ideas, "ut to maintain a high standard of challenge and
attention to e#idence "ased on scientific traditions. The omponent com"ines t(o
ideas 2 that learning in#ol#es acti#ity and engagement, and that scientific
processes fundamentally in#ol#e argument from e#idence. /t is hard, in a practising
science classroom situation, to separate these notions.
Related ideas in the science education literature:
%haring intellectual control, or student centredness 2 The idea that students! ideas
"e treated (ith respect is (ell esta"lished in research on students! conceptions and
research on learning in science. The Monash 3ni#ersity -'tended 45 materials, no(
em"edded (ithin the %/%45 program, emphasised this control aspect. 6ne cannot
e'pect students to "e engaged (ith a pre7packaged program entirely dictated "y
teachers! understandings, and this omponent asks that teachers take some risks in
ackno(ledging that students, if they are to learn, must "e gi#en a measure of control
o#er the ideas that are discussed.
/n.uiry "ased learning 2 This is a term much in #ogue in the 3.%., implying that
science teaching and learning must "e "ased on students acti#ely e'ploring and
in#estigating and .uestioning. This is different to disco#ery learning! (hich, in its
pure form, implied someho( that students could learn science simply "y undertaking
appropriate practical in#estigations, and under7represented the critical role of the
teacher in structuring and responding to student e'periences. , related phrase often
used in primary science education is hands7on, minds7on! science. /t is the minds7
on! part that is referred to "y this omponent.
%tudent autonomy, and responsi"ility for learning 2 These ideas emphasise "oth the
acti#e and intentional nature of learning and the purpose of schooling in promoting
autonomous adults. -ngagement is a prior condition for "oth. The Middle Years
concern (ith student engagement (ith ideas and (ith schooling is also linked to this
omponent. The omponent should not "e thought a"out, ho(e#er, simply in terms
of moti#ation or a (illingness to 1oin in. /t focuses clearly on ideas.
Ma'imising student7student interaction 2 , #ideo study of mathematics and science
teachers )lark, 2000* found that the key determinant of a rich learning en#ironment
(as the amount of high .uality student 8 student dialogue. This could "e taken as
one of the critical features of engagement (ith ideas.
ommunity of learners 2 This idea of a class or group as a community dedicated to
particular forms of learning sits comforta"ly (ith omponent 0, since engagement
(ith ideas and e#idence! can "e interpreted as a communal enterprise. %ocial
constructi#ism, or socio cultural theory, is also linked (ith this idea.
,rgumentation 2 there is gro(ing interest in idea that the a"ility to frame and
respond to argument is an important focus for science education. %cience as it is
practised in the community is characteri9ed "y argument "ased on e#idence.
%cience processes and concepts of e#idence 2 The teaching of science processes
has a long history in science education. These are sometimes called skills!, "ut in
fact there is a good deal of kno(ledge associated (ith things like e'perimental
design, measurement principles, or analysis. -#idence is handled in science in
particular (ays )eg. principles of sampling, or #aria"le control, or measurement
procedures* and learning ho( this occurs in a more formal (ay is a part of this first
omponent. The teaching and learning focus associated (ith this (ould include
"eing taught ho( to do things like sample "iological data, control #aria"les, set up
ta"les, deal (ith measurement error etc. These may "e taught e'plicitly, "ut teaching
for an understanding of the (ay e#idence is used (ould imply that students need to
learn to make decisions a"out design, measurement and analysis. 6pen ended
in#estigations form an important end of the practical (ork spectrum.
2. Challenging students to develop meaningful understandings
Component 2 raises the questions what does it mean to understand something in
science, and what is meaningful?! :either are straightfor(ard .uestions. The
teachers (ho (ere originally inter#ie(ed to de#elop the omponents talked of
deeper le#el understandings, or understandings that (ould "e re#isited in different
situations to enrich and challenge.
Related ideas in the science education literature
%tudent conceptions 2 The research into student conceptions sho(s clearly that
students come to any science topic (ith prior ideas that (ill often contradict the
science #ersion of understanding, that can interfere (ith learning. ;earning, and
gaining understanding should "e #ie(ed often as a shift in perspecti#e rather than
something implanted o#er nothing. The conceptual change literature, (hich
emphasises pro"es of understanding, and challenge acti#ities, is thus rele#ant to this
omponent. ;esson and topic structure "ecomes important for the de#elopment of
understanding.
Metacognition 2 The (ork of the 4--; pro1ect has important links to this
omponent, focusing on student learning strategies, and control o#er learning. /f
students are to esta"lish deeper le#el understandings they need to "e helped to
de#elop good learning ha"its, and to monitor the ade.uacy of their o(n
understandings. These ideas underlie the thinking curriculum! focus of some of the
Middle Years pro1ects.
$igher order thinking 2 Many (riters ha#e made the distinction "et(een shallo(
and deep, or lo( and higher order thinking. &loom!s ta'onomy identified higher order
thinking as associated (ith the application and e#aluation of ideas. /deas such as the
three story intellect! attempt a similar hierarchy.
5eeper or (ider< 2 , commitment to looking "elo( the surface is one (ay of
descri"ing this omponent. ,nother aspect of meaningful understandings is the
insight that ideas are tools to "e applied rather than concepts to "e arri#ed at. The
a"ility to use an idea in interpreting the (orld is a critical part of understanding.
5i#ergent thinking 2 4art of (hat a meaningful understanding! should "e in#ol#es
the a"ility to use it to sol#e une'pected pro"lems, or to generate a #ariety of related
ideas. The a"ility to think di#ergently or laterally is part of (hat a meaningful
understanding! is.
4edagogical ontent =no(ledge )4=* 2 /n order to support students in de#eloping
understandings, it is essential for teachers to "e kno(ledgea"le themsel#es )content
kno(ledge*, not so they can tell!, "ut so they can listen and challenge. The other
form of kno(ledge needed is that of ho( students learn particular concepts 8 the
difficulties they e'perience and the different (ays they may interpret the science
idea. >e call this 4=.
Improving Middle Years Mathematics and Science: Components relevant to
Higher Order thinking
Recently )in early 2004* (e ha#e "een engaged in de#eloping a set of omponents
of effecti#e teaching and learning in mathematics and science, and e'amples to
support t(o components dealing (ith higher order thinking are gi#en "elo(.
3. Students are challenged to extend their understandings
%tudents engage (ith conceptually challenging content such that they de#elop
higher order understandings of key ideas and processes.
!"# $ub%ect matter is conceptually comple& and intriguing, but accessible
!"2 Tasks challenge students to e&plore, question and reflect on key ideas
!"! The teacher clearly signals high e&pectations for each student
This Component is demonstrated when
? %tudents are challenged to reflect on their response to tasks
? 6pen .uestions are asked that call for interpreti#e responses
? The teacher poses .uestions and hypothetical situations to mo#e
students "eyond superficial approaches
? %tudents are asked to represent their understandings in a #ariety
of (ays
? /ncluding fre.uent open ended pro"lems and e'plorations
? The teacher pro#ides e'periences and poses .uestions that challenge
students! understandings, and encourages them to apply ideas to unfamiliar
situations
? %timulus materials are pro#ided that challenge students! ideas and
encourage discussion and ongoing e'ploration
? $istorical case studies are used to e'plore ho( ma1or science ideas
de#eloped
? $igher order tasks in#ol#ing the generation, application, analysis and
synthesis of ideas, are (ell represented, for e'ample, "y the teacher using
&loom!s ta'onomy in planning.
? %tudents are pro#ided (ith .uestions or challenges as the impetus for
learning and encouraging and supporting students to construct their o(n
responses to such .uestions
? 6pen7ended pro"lems or tasks are set that re.uire di#ergent responses and
pro#ide the opportunity for solutions of differing kinds to "e de#eloped.
? %tudents are encouraged to e'amine critically and e#en challenge
information pro#ided "y the teacher, a te't"ook, a ne(spaper, etc.
? The teacher sets learning challenges that re.uire students to analyse,
e#aluate and create
? The teacher uses higher order thinking tools (hen planning acti#ities to
allo( for multiple entry points and to de#elop higher order thinking skills such
as synthesis, e#aluation etc.
The Component is '(T demonstrated when
? /n#estigations or pro1ects run (ithout significant class discussion of the
underlying science.
? lass acti#ities (hich are fun, (ith surprising outcomes, "ut (ithout follo(
up of ideas in su"se.uent lessons, or framing of the ideas "ehind the
acti#ities.
? %cience concepts are treated as things to "e learnt!, emphasising formal
definitions.
? There is a presumption that it is the teacher!s role to control (hat is to "e
learnt, and ho( it is to "e learnt.
? lassroom (ork is constrained or recipe like, (ithout room for discussion or
de"ate of purpose or methods
? ;esson plans contain too much material to allo( sustained discussions in
response to student .uestions
? ,cti#ities focus on ha#ing fun (ithout a real focus on conceptual
understandings
. Students are encouraged to see themselves as mathematical and
scientific thin!ers
)"# $tudents are e&plicitly supported to engage with the processes of open*
ended investigation and problem solving
This Component is demonstrated when
? The teacher plans to strategically "uild opportunities for students to de#elop
hypotheses in practical (ork, and to e'tend and .uestion interpretations
? The teacher encourages students to raise .uestions in class, arising out of
o"ser#ations, or e'perience.
? %tudents are encouraged to make decisions in practical in#estigations
concerning hypotheses to "e e'plored, e'perimental design, measurement
and recording techni.ues, analysis and interpretation.
This component is '(T demonstrated when
? %tudents are gi#en a choice of in#estigations to carry out, "ut (ithout
training in appropriate e'perimental techni.ues and (ith no group
commitment to the ideas "eing tested.
? , class e'periment focuses on control of #aria"les )fair testing* (ithout a
clear conceptual proposition. @or instance, the permea"ility of sand, loam and
clay soil is tested, (ith attention paid to controlling for (ater, amount of soil,
techni.ue, "ut (ithout discussing the purpose or the reasons (hy they might
differ.
? 4ractical (ork is recipe7like, (ithout room for discussion and de"ate of
purpose, methods, analysis.
)"2 $tudents engage in mathematical+scientific reasoning and argumentation
This sub*component is demonstrated when
? %timulus materials are pro#ided that challenge students! ideas and
encouraging discussion, speculation, and ongoing e'ploration
? Time is allo(ed for discussions to arise naturally and "e follo(ed in
class, and encouraging in#estigations to resol#e .uestions
? The teacher shares intellectual control (ith students
? The learning program includes fre.uent open ended in#estigations or short7
term open e'plorationsA
? The teacher encourages discussion of e#idence, including disconfirming
e#idence such as anomalies in e'perimental (ork, in te't "ook e'planations,
in o"ser#ations, or in pu"lic reports of scienceA
? The teacher pro#ides students (ith .uestions or challenges as the impetus
for learning and encourages and supports students to construct their o(n
responses to such .uestions
? %tudents are encouraged to challenge or support or amplify others!
contri"utions.
The sub*component is '(T demonstrated when
B There is a strong focus on ensuring content co#erage, as distinct from
understanding
B ;esson plans are strictly follo(ed, (ith too much material to "e co#ered to
allo( di#ergent discussions in response to student .uestions or comments.
B %tudents (ork mainly indi#idually, (ith not much (hole7class or small7
group discussion.
B lass discussion is dominated "y the teacher!s #oice.
B Teacher .uestions are mainly closed, (ith a particular response in mind.
B There is a strong focus on ensuring content co#erage, as distinct from
understanding.
B /ntellectual control is firmly maintained "y the teacher.
,&amples to illustrate the Component
B The history of science ideas is strongly represented.
-g. , science topic on disease focuses on the history of our understanding of
the "acterial nature of infection, to emphasise the po(er of science insights,
and the (ay e#idence is used to test and #erify theories in science.
B ,ttention is paid to the processes of hypothesis generation and
e'perimental design -g. Y#onne ran an animal "eha#iour unit for her Year 0
class. They discussed, using o"ser#ations of a classroom pet rat, the
difference "et(een o"ser#ation and inference. They learnt the techni.ue of
time sampling of animal position and "eha#iour using "irds in a cage, and
one, then t(o rats in an enclosure. @ollo(ing discussions a"out the sur#i#al
implications of "eha#iour, they then e'amined crickets and came up (ith a
class list of .uestions a"out cricket "eha#iour, or structure and function. 4airs
of students designed, carried out and reported on a chosen .uestion, using a
template that re.uired presentation of data in t(o formats, and an e#aluation
of the generality of the findings. The focus in the discussion continually
referred "ack to the adapti#e purpose of particular "eha#iours. -g. Year 00
students studying genetics in#estigate recent claims there has "een cross7
"reeding of genetically modified soy into local crops. They look at the
suggested mechanism for cross7pollination, and study genetic techni.ues, to
come up (ith suggestions a"out (hat controls should "e in place.
B 4lanning is fle'i"le enough so that student ideas and .uestions can "e
genuinely follo(ed up, perhaps "y further in#estigation. -g. Culie!s Year 4
class raised the .uestion a"out ho( long a "allpoint pen (ould last. They
discussed ho( you (ould find out, then arranged a comparati#e in#estigation
(ith different "rands, measuring the length of line (ith appropriate controls.
-g. 5uring a genetics unit, the .uestion of genetically modified food captures
student interest and leads to a de"ate informed "y independent research
using the (e".
B ,nomalous results from e'periments are discussed openly in the class. -g.
raig!s Year 8 class found an e'periment culturing "acteria ga#e anomalous
results. &efore handing the cultures "ack to groups he displayed them, then
led a discussion in (hich they discussed the surprise results to come up (ith
some possi"le reasons and an e#aluation of the ade.uacy of the controls they
had put in place. -g. , class uses de &ono!s thinking hats techni.ue to fully
e'plore the greenhouse effect. -g. , unit is planned using the interacti#e
approach!, (here"y students! .uestions are discussed and refined to form the
"asis of in#estigations forming the core of the unit.
B urrent issues are discussed in class, (hich encourage students to raise
.uestions a"out e#idence, or the ideas underlying such issues. -g. Methods
of responding to a contemporary out"reak of foot and mouth are discussed
and de"ated, using ne(spaper analyses. -g. The nutritional #alue of
children!s lunches is discussed, using e#idence from a resource "ook on
dietary principles. -g. /n a unit on road safety, e#idence related to the (earing
of seat "elts, or of "icycle helmets, is de"ated in the conte't of pu"lic policy.
? 6pen7ended tasks are set that encourage di#ergent, creati#e thinking -g.
%tudents are asked to use their science understandings to design a system,
or technological de#ice, such as an automated plant nursery, or method of
analysing the mo#ement of a net"all player. -g. %tudents are challenged
using (hat (ould happen if..! .uestions )/f gra#ity on earth (as stronger, if (e
could clone dinosaurs+*, or take place in hypotheticals!.
Tutorial 2
TEN MYTHS O SCIENCE: !EE"#MININ$ %H#T %E THIN& %E &NO%'''
%' McComas ())*
This article addresses and attempts to refute se#eral of the most (idespread and
enduring misconceptions held "y students regarding the enterprise of science. The
ten myths discussed include the common notions that theories "ecome la(s, that
hypotheses are "est characteri9ed as educated guesses, and that there is a
commonly7applied scientific method. /n addition, the article includes discussion of
other incorrect ideas such as the #ie( that e#idence leads to sure kno(ledge, that
science and its methods pro#ide a"solute proof, and that science is not a creati#e
endea#or. @inally, the myths that scientists are o"1ecti#e, that e'periments are the
sole route to scientific kno(ledge and that scientific conclusions are continually
re#ie(ed conclude this presentation. The paper ends (ith a plea that instruction in
and opportunities to e'perience the nature of science are #ital in preser#ice and
inser#ice teacher education programs to help unseat the myths of science. Myths
are typically defined as traditional #ie(s, fa"les, legends or stories. ,s such, myths
can "e entertaining and e#en educational since they help people make sense of the
(orld. /n fact, the e'planatory role of myths most likely accounts for their
de#elopment, spread and persistence. $o(e#er, (hen fact and fiction "lur, myths
lose their entertainment #alue and ser#e only to "lock full understanding. %uch is the
case (ith the myths of science. %cholar Coseph amp"ell )0DE8* has proposed that
the similarity among many folk myths (orld(ide is due to a su"conscious link
"et(een all peoples, "ut no such link can e'plain the myths of science.
Misconceptions a"out science are most likely due to the lack of philosophy of
science content in teacher education programs, the failure of such programs to
pro#ide and re.uire authentic science e'periences for preser#ice teachers and the
generally shallo( treatment of the nature of science in the precollege te't"ooks to
(hich teachers might turn for guidance. ,s %te#en Cay Fould points out in The ase
of the reeping @o' Terrier lone )0D88*, science te't"ook (riters are among the
most egregious pur#eyors of myth and inaccuracy. The fo' terrier mentioned in the
title refers to the classic comparison used to e'press the si9e of the da(n horse, the
tiny precursor to the modem horse. This comparison is unfortunate for t(o reasons.
:ot only (as this horse ancestor much "igger than a fo' terrier, "ut the fo' terrier
"reed of dog is #irtually unkno(n to ,merican students. The ma1or criticism le#eled
"y Fould is that once this comparison took hold, no one "othered to check its #alidity
or utility. Through time, one author after another simply repeated the inept
comparison and continued a tradition that has made many science te'ts #irtual
clones of each other on this and countless other points.
/n an attempt to pro#ide a more realistic #ie( of science and point out issues
on (hich science teachers should focus, this article presents and discusses 00
(idely7held, yet incorrect ideas a"out the nature of science. There is no implication
that all students, or most teachers for that matter, hold all of these #ie(s to "e true,
nor is the list meant to "e the definiti#e catolog. ole )0D8E* and Rothman )0DD2*
ha#e suggested additional misconceptions (orthy of consideration. $o(e#er, years
of science teaching and the re#ie( of countless te'ts has su"stantiated the #alidity of
the in#entory presented here.
"yth 1: #ypotheses $ecome theories which $ecome laws
This myth deals (ith the general "elief that (ith increased e#idence there is a
de#elopmental se.uence through (hich scientific ideas pass on their (ay to final
acceptance. Many "elie#e that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and
theory stages and finally mature as la(s. , former 3.%. president sho(ed his
misunderstanding of science "y saying that he (as not trou"led "y the idea of
e#olution "ecause it (as G1ust a theory.G The presidentHs misstatement is the essence
of this mythI that an idea is not (orthy of consideration until Gla(nessG has "een
"esto(ed upon it. The pro"lem created "y the false hierarchical nature inherent in
this myth is that theories and la(s are #ery different kinds of kno(ledge. 6f course
there is a relationship "et(een la(s and theories, "ut one simply does not "ecome
the other77no matter ho( much empirical e#idence is amassed. ;a(s are
generali9ations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the e'planations of
those generali9ations )Rhodes J %chai"le, 0D8DI $omer J Ru""a, 0DKDI amp"ell,
0DLM*. @or instance, :e(ton descri"ed the relationship of mass and distance to
gra#itational attraction "et(een o"1ects (ith such precision that (e can use the la(
of gra#ity to plan spaceflights. 5uring the ,pollo 8 mission, astronaut &ill ,nders
responded to the .uestion of (ho (as flying the spacecraft "y saying, G/ think that
/ssac :e(ton is doing most of the dri#ing fight no(.G )haikin, 0DD4, p. 02K*. $is
response (as understood "y all to mean that the capsule (as simply follo(ing the
"asic la(s of physics descri"ed "y /saac :e(ton years centuries earlier. The more
thorny, and many (ould say more interesting, issue (ith respect to gra#ity is the
e'planation for (hy the la( operates as it does. ,t this point, there is no (ell.
accepted theory of gra#ity. %ome physicists suggest that gra#ity (a#es are the
correct e'planation for the la( of gra#ity, "ut (ith clear confirmation and consensus
lacking, most feel that the theory of gra#ity still eludes science. /nterestingly, :e(ton
addressed the distinction "et(een la( and theory (ith respect to gra#ity. ,lthough
he had disco#ered the la( of gra#ity, he refrained from speculating pu"lically a"out
its cause. /n 4rincipial, :e(ton statesG . . . / ha#e not "een a"le to disco#er the
cause of those properties of gra#ity from phenomena, and / frame no hypothesis . . .G
G . . . it is enough that gra#ity does really e'ist, and act according to the la(s (hich
(e ha#e e'plained . . .G ):e(ton, 0K20N0D4E, p. L4K*.
"yth 2: % hypothesis is an educated guess
The definition of the term hypothesis has taken on an almost mantra7 like life of its
o(n in science classes. /f a hypothesis is al(ays an educated guess as students
typically assert, the .uestion remains, Gan educated guess a"out (hat<G The "est
ans(er for this .uestion must "e, that (ithout a clear #ie( of the conte't in (hich the
term is used, it is impossi"le to tell. The term hypothesis has at least three
definitions, and for that reason, should "e a"andoned, or at
least used (ith caution. @or instance, (hen :e(ton said that he framed no
hypothesis as to the cause of gra#ity he (as saying that he had no speculation a"out
an e'planation of (hy the la( of gra#ity operates as it does. /n this case, :e(ton
used the term hypothesis to represent an immature theory. ,s a solution to the
hypothesis pro"lem, %onleitner )0D8D* suggested that tentati#e or trial la(s "e called
generali9ing hypotheses (ith pro#isional theories referred to as e'planatory
hypotheses. ,nother approach (ould "e to a"andon the (ord hypothesis altogether
in fa#or of terms such as speculati#e la( or speculati#e theory. >ith e#idence,
generali9ing hypotheses may "ecome la(s and speculati#e theories "ecome
theories, "ut under no circumstances do theories "ecome la(s. @inally, (hen
students are asked to propose a hypothesis during a la"oratory e'perience, the term
no( means a prediction. ,s for those hypotheses that are really forecasts, perhaps
they should simply "e called (hat they are, predictions.
"yth 3: % general and universal scientific method exists
The notion that a common series of steps is follo(ed "y all research scientists must
"e among the most per#asi#e myths of science gi#en the appearance of such a list
in the introductory chapters of many precollege science te'ts. This myth has "een
part of the folklore of school science e#er since its proposal "y statistician =arl
4earson )0DMK*. The steps listed for the scientific method #ary from te't to te't "ut
usually include, a* define the pro"lem, "* gather "ackground information, c* form a
hypothesis, d* make o"ser#ations, e* test the hypothesis, and f* dra( conclusions.
%ome te'ts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method "y listing
communication of results as the final ingredient.
6ne of the reasons for the (idespread "elief in a general scientific method
may "e the (ay in (hich results are presented for pu"lication in research 1ournals.
The standardi9ed style makes it appear that scientists follo( a standard research
plan. Meda(ar )0DD0* reacted to the common style e'hi"ited "y research papers "y
calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final 1ournal report rarely outlines the
actual (ay in (hich the pro"lem (as in#estigated. 4hilosophers of science (ho
ha#e studied scientists at (ork ha#e sho(n that no research method is applied
uni#ersally )arey, 0DD4I Fi""s J ;a(son, 0DD2I halmers, 0DD0I F1ertsen, 0D8D*.
The notion of a single scientific method is so per#asi#e it seems certain that many
students must "e disappointed (hen they disco#er that scientists do not ha#e a
framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high a"o#e each la"oratory
(ork"ench. lose inspection (ill re#eal that scientists approach and sol#e pro"lems
(ith imagination, creati#ity, prior kno(ledge and perse#erance. These, of course, are
the same methods used "y all pro"lem7sol#ers. The lesson to "e learned is that
science is no different from other human endea#ors (hen pu99les are in#estigated.
@ortunately, this is one myth that may e#entually "e displaced since many ne(er
te'ts are a"andoning or augmenting the list in fa#or of discussions of methods of
science.
"yth &: Evidence accumulated carefully will result in sure !nowledge
,ll in#estigators, including scientists, collect and interpret empirical e#idence through
the process called induction. This is a techni.ue "y (hich indi#idual pieces of
e#idence are collected and e'amined until a la( is disco#ered or a theory is
in#ented. 3seful as this techni.ue is, e#en a preponderance of e#idence does not
guarantee the production of #alid kno(ledge "ecause of (hat is called the pro"lem
of induction. /nduction (as first formali9ed "y @rances &acon in the 0Kth century. /n
his "ook, :o#um 6rganum )0E20N 0DL2*, &acon ad#ised that facts "e assimilated
(ithout "ias to reach a conclusion. The method of induction he suggested is the
principal (ay in (hich humans traditionally ha#e produced generali9ations that
permit predictions. >hat then is the pro"lem (ith induction<
/t is "oth impossi"le to make all o"ser#ations pertaining to a gi#en situation
and illogical to secure all rele#ant facts for all time, past, present and future.
$o(e#er, only "y making all rele#ant o"ser#ations throughout all time, could one say
that a final #alid conclusion had "een made. This is the pro"lem of induction. 6n a
personal le#el, this pro"lem is of little conse.uence, "ut in science the pro"lem is
significant. %cientists formulate la(s and theories that are supposed to hold true in
all places and for all time "ut the pro"lem of induction makes such a guarantee
impossi"le. The proposal of a ne( la( "egins through induction as facts are heaped
upon other rele#ant facts. 5eduction is useful in checking the #alidity of a la(. @or
e'ample, if (e postulate that all s(ans are (hite, (e can e#aluate the la( "y
predicting that the ne't s(an found (ill also "e (hite. /f it is, the la( is supported, "ut
not pro#ed as (ill "e seen in the discussion of another science myth. ;ocating e#en
a single "lack s(an (ill cause the la( to "e called into .uestion. The nature of
induction itself is another interesting aspect associated (ith this myth. /f (e set aside
the pro"lem of induction momentarily, there is still the issue of ho( scientists make
the final leap from the mass of e#idence to the conclusion. /n an ideali9ed #ie( of
induction, the accumulated e#idence (ill simply result in the production of a ne( la(
or theory in a procedural or mechanical fashion. /n reality, there is no such method.
The issue is far more comple' 8 and interesting 77than that. The final creati#e leap
from e#idence to scientific kno(ledge is the focus of another myth of science.
"yth : Science and its methods provide a$solute proof
The general success of the scientific endea#or suggests that its products must "e
#alid. $o(e#er, a hallmark of scientific kno(ledge is that it is su"1ect to re#ision
(hen ne( information is presented. Tentati#eness is one of the points that
differentiates science from other forms of kno(ledge. ,ccumulated e#idence can
pro#ide support, #alidation and su"stantiation for a la( or theory, "ut (ill ne#er pro#e
those la(s and theories to "e true. This idea has "een addressed "y $omer and
Ru""a )0DK8* and ;opnshinsky )0DDM*. The pro"lem of induction argues against
proof in science, "ut there is another element of this myth (orth e'ploring. /n
actuality, the only truly conclusi#e kno(ledge produced "y science results (hen a
notion is falsified. >hat this means is that no matter (hat scientific idea is
considered, once e#idence "egins to accumulate, at least (e kno( that the notion is
untrue. onsider the e'ample of the (hite s(ans discussed earlier. 6ne could
search the (orld and see only (hite s(ans, and arri#e at the generali9ation that Gall
s(ans are (hite. G $o(e#er, the disco#ery of one "lack s(an has the potential to
o#erturn, or at least result in modifications of,
this proposed la( of nature. $o(e#er, (hether scientists routinely try to falsify their
notions and ho( much contrary e#idence it takes for a scientistHs mind to change are
issues (orth e'ploring.
"yth ': Science is procedural more than creative
>e accept that no single guaranteed method of science can account for the success
of science, "ut reali9e that induction, the collection and interpretation of indi#idual
facts pro#iding the ra( materials for la(s and theories, is at the foundation of most
scientific endea#ors. This a(areness "rings (ith it a parado'. /f induction itself is not
a guaranteed method for arri#ing at conclusions, ho( do scientists de#elop useful
la(s and theories< /nduction makes use of indi#idual facts that are collected,
analy9ed and e'amined. %ome o"ser#ers may percei#e a pattern in these data and
propose a la( in response, "ut there is no logical or procedural method "y (hich the
pattern is suggested. >ith a theory, the issue is much the same. 6nly the creati#ity
of the indi#idual scientist permits the disco#ery of la(s and the in#ention of theories.
/f there truly (as a single scientific method, t(o indi#iduals (ith the same e'pertise
could re#ie( the same facts and reach identical conclusions. There is no guarantee
of this "ecause the range and nature of creati#ity is a personal attri"ute.
3nfortunately, many common science teaching orientations and methods ser#e to
(ork against the creati#e element in science. The ma1ority of la"oratory e'ercises,
for instance, are #erification acti#ities. The teacher discusses (hat (ill happen in the
la"oratory, the manual pro#ides step7"ystep directions, and the student is e'pected
to arri#e at a particular ans(er. :ot only is this approach the antithesis of the (ay in
(hich science actually operates, "ut such a portrayal must seem dry, clinical and
uninteresting to many students. /n her "ook, TheyHre :ot 5um", TheyHre 5ifferent
)0DD0* %hiela To"ias argues that many capa"le and cle#er students re1ect science as
a career "ecause they are not gi#en an opportunity to see it as an e'citing and
creati#e pursuit. The moral in To"iasH thesis is that science itself may "e
impo#erished (hen students (ho feel a need for a creati#e outlet eliminate it as a
potential career "ecause of the (ay it is taught.
"yth (: Science and its methods can answer all )uestions.
4hilosophers of science ha#e found it useful to refer to the (ork of =arl 4opper
)0DE8* and his principle of falsifia"ility to pro#ide an operational definition of science.
4opper "elie#ed that only those ideas that are potentially falsifia"le are scientific
ideas. @or instance, the la( of gra#ity states that more massi#e o"1ects e'ert a
stronger gra#itational attraction than do o"1ects (ith less mass (hen distance is held
constant. This is a scientific la( "ecause it could "e falsified if ne(ly7disco#ered
o"1ects operate differently (ith respect to gra#itational attraction. /n contrast, the
core idea among creationists is that species (ere place on earth fully7formed "y
some supernatural entity. 6"#iously, there is no scientific method "y (hich such a
"elief could "e sho(n to "e false. %ince this special creation #ie( is impossi"le to
falsify, it is not science at all and the term creation science is an o'ymoron. reation
science is a religious "elief and as such, does not re.uire that it "e falsifia"le.
$undreds of years ago thoughtful theologians and scientists car#ed out their spheres
of influence and ha#e since coe'isted (ith little acrimony. Today, only those (ho fail
to understand the distinction "et(een science and religion confuse the rules, roles,
and limitations of these t(o important (orld #ie(s. /t should no( "e clear that some
.uestions simply must not "e asked of scientists. 5uring a recent creation science
trial for instance, :o"el laureates (ere asked to sign a statement a"out the nature of
science to pro#ide some guidance to the court. These famous scientists responded
resoundingly to support such a statementI after all they (ere e'perts in the realm of
science )=layman, %locom"e, ;ehman, J =aufman, 0D8E*. ;ater, those interested in
citing e'pert opinion in the a"ortion de"ate asked scientists to issue a statement
regarding their feelings on this issue. >isely, fe( participated. %cience cannot
ans(er the moral and ethical .uestions engendered "y the matter of a"ortion. 6f
course, scientists as indi#iduals ha#e personal opinions a"out many issues, "ut as a
group, they must remain silent if those issues are outside the realm of scientific
in.uiry. %cience simply cannot address moral, ethical, aesthetic, social and
metaphysical .uestions.
"yth *. Scientists are particularly o$+ective
%cientists are no different in their le#el of o"1ecti#ity than are other professionals.
They are careful in the analysis of e#idence and in the procedures applied to arri#e
at conclusions. >ith this admission, it may seem that this myth is #alid, "ut
contri"utions from "oth the philosophy of science and psychology re#eal that there
are at least three ma1or reasons that make complete o"1ecti#ity impossi"le.
Many philosophers of science support 4opperHs )0DEM* #ie( that science can
ad#ance only through a string of (hat he called con1ectures and refutations. /n other
(ords, scientists should propose la(s and theories as con1ectures and then acti#ely
(ork to dispro#e or refute those ideas. 4opper suggests that the a"sence of
contrary e#idence, demonstrated through an acti#e program of refutation, (ill pro#ide
the "est support a#aila"le. /t may seem like a strange (ay of thinking a"out
#erification, "ut the a"sence of disproof is considered support. There is one ma1or
pro"lem (ith the idea of con1ecture and refutation. 4opper seems to ha#e proposed
it as a recommendation for scientists, not as a description of (hat scientists do.
@rom a philosophical perspecti#e the idea is sound, "ut there are no indications that
scientists acti#ely practice programs to search for disconfirming e#idence. ,nother
aspect of the ina"ility of scientists to "e o"1ecti#e is found in theory7laden
o"ser#ation, a psychological notion )$odson, 0D8E*. %cientists, like all o"ser#ers,
hold a myriad of preconceptions and "iases a"out the (ay the (orld operates.
These notions, held in the su"conscious, affect e#eryoneHs a"ility to make
o"ser#ations. /t is impossi"le to collect and interpret facts (ithout any "ias. There
ha#e "een countless cases in the history of science in (hich scientists ha#e failed to
include particular o"ser#ations in their final analyses of phenomena. This occurs, not
"ecause of fraud or deceit, "ut "ecause of the prior kno(ledge possessed "y the
indi#idual. ertain facts either (ere not seen at all or (ere deemed unimportant
"ased on the scientistsHs prior kno(ledge. /n earlier discussions of induction, (e
postulated that t(o indi#iduals re#ie(ing the same data (ould not "e e'pected to
reach the same conclusions. :ot only does indi#idual creati#ity play a role, "ut the
issue of personal theory7laden o"ser#ation further complicates the situation. This
lesson has clear implications for science teaching. Teachers typically pro#ide
learning e'periences for students (ithout considering their prior kno(ledge. /n the
la"oratory, for instance, students are asked to perform acti#ities, make o"ser#ations
and then form conclusions. There is an e'pectation that the conclusions formed (ill
"e "oth self7e#ident and uniform. /n other (ords, teachers anticipate that the data
(ill lead all pupils to the same conclusion.
This could only happen if each student had the same e'act prior
conceptions and made and e#aluate o"ser#ations using identical schemes. This
does not happen in science nor does it occur in the science classroom. Related to
the issue of theory7"ased o"ser#ations is the allegiance to the paradigm. Thomas
=uhn )0DK0*, in his ground7"reaking analysis of the history of science, sho(s that
scientists (ork (ithin a research tradition called a paradigm. This research tradition,
shared "y those (orking in a gi#en discipline, pro#ides clues to the .uestions (orth
in#estigating, dictates (hat e#idence is admissi"le and prescri"es the tests and
techni.ues that are reasona"le.
,lthough the paradigm pro#ides direction to the research it may also stifle or
limit in#estigation. ,nything that confines the research endea#or necessarily limits
o"1ecti#ity. >hile there is no conscious desire on the part of scientists to limit
discussion, it is likely that some ne( ideas in science are re1ected "ecause of the
paradigm issue. >hen research reports are su"mitted for pu"lication they are
re#ie(ed "y other mem"ers of the discipline. /deas from outside the paradigm are
lia"le to "e eliminated from consideration as crackpot or poor science and thus do
not appear in print. -'amples of scientific ideas that (ere originally re1ected
"ecause they fell outside the accepted paradigm include the sun7centered solar
system, (arm7"loodedness in dinosaurs, the germ7theory of disease, and
continental drift.
>hen first proposed early in this century "y ,lfred >egener, the idea of
mo#ing continents, for e'ample, (as #igorously re1ected. %cientists (ere not ready
to em"race a notion so contrary to the traditional teachings of their discipline.
ontinental drift (as finally accepted in the 0DE0s (ith the proposal of a mechanism
or theory to e'plain ho( continental plates mo#e )$allam, 0DKL and Menard, 0D8E*.
This fundamental change in the earth sciences, called a re#olution "y =uhn, might
ha#e occurred decades earlier had it not "een for the strength of the paradigm. /t
(ould "e un(ise to conclude a discussion of scientific paradigms on a negati#e note.
,lthough the e'amples pro#ided do sho( the contrary aspects associated (ith
paradigm7fi'ity, =uhn (ould argue that the "linders created "y allegiance to the
paradigm help keep scientists on track. $is re#ie( of the history of science
demonstrates that paradigms are responsi"le for far more successes in science than
delays.
"yth ,: Experiments are the principle route to scientific !nowledge
Throughout their school science careers, students are encouraged to associate
science (ith e'perimentation. Oirtually all hands7on e'periences that students ha#e
in science class is called e'periments e#en if it (ould "e more accurate to refer to
these e'ercises as technical procedures, e'plorations or acti#ities. True e'periments
in#ol#e carefully orchestrated procedures along (ith control and test groups usually
(ith the goal of esta"lishing a cause and effect relationship. 6f course, true
e'perimentation is a useful tool in science, "ut is not the sole route to kno(ledge.
Many note7(orthy scientists ha#e used non7e'perimental techni.ues to ad#ance
kno(ledge. /n fact, in a num"er of science disciplines, true e'perimentation is not
possi"le "ecause of the ina"ility to control #aria"les. Many fundamental disco#eries
in astronomy are "ased on e'tensi#e o"ser#ations rather than e'periments.
opernicus and =epler changed our #ie( of the solar system using o"ser#ational
e#idence deri#ed from lengthy and detailed o"ser#ations fre.uently contri"uted "y
other scientists, "ut neither performed e'periments. harles 5ar(in punctuated his
career (ith an in#estigatory regime more similar to .ualitati#e techni.ues used in the
social sciences than the e'perimental techni.ues commonly associated (ith the
natural sciences.
@or his most re#olutionary disco#eries, 5ar(in recorded his e'tensi#e
o"ser#ations in note"ooks annotated "y speculations and thoughts a"out those
o"ser#ations. ,lthough 5ar(in supported the inducti#e method proposed "y &acon,
he (as a(are that o"ser#ation (ithout speculation or prior understanding (as "oth
ineffecti#e and impossi"le. The techni.ues ad#anced "y 5ar(in ha#e "een (idely
used "y scientists Foodall and :ossey in their primate studies. %cientific kno(ledge
is gained in a #ariety of (ays including o"ser#ation, analysis, speculation, li"rary
in#estigation and e'perimentation.
"yth 1-: %ll wor! in science is reviewed to !eep the process honest.
@re.uently, the final step in the traditional scientific method is that researchers
communicate their results so that others may learn from and e#aluate their research.
>hen completing la"oratory reports, students are fre.uently told to present their
methods section so clearly that others could repeat the acti#ity. The conclusion that
students (ill likely dra( from this re.uest is that professional scientists are also
constantly re#ie(ing each otherHs e'periments to check up on each other.
3nfortunately, (hile such a check and "alance system (ould "e useful, the num"er
of findings from one scientist checked "y others is #anishingly small. /n reality, most
scientists are simply too "usy and research funds too limited for this type of re#ie(.
The result of the lack of o#ersight has recently put science itself under suspicion.
>ith the pressures of academic tenure, personal competition and funding, it is not
surprising that instances of outright scientific fraud do occur. $o(e#er, e#en (ithout
fraud, the enormous amount of original scientific research pu"lished, and the
pressure to produce ne( information rather than reproduce othersH (ork dramatically
increases the chance that errors (ill go unnoticed. ,n interesting corollary to this
myth is that scientists rarely report #alid, "ut negati#e results. >hile this is
understanda"le gi#en the space limitations in scientific 1ournals, the failure to report
(hat did not (ork is a pro"lem. 6nly (hen those (orking in a particular scientific
discipline ha#e access to all of the information regarding a phenomenon 77 "oth
positi#e and negati#e 8 can the discipline progress.
Conclusions
/f, in fact, students and many of their teachers hold these myths to "e true, (e ha#e
strong support for a rene(ed focus on science itself rather than 1ust its facts and
principles in science teaching and science teacher education. This is one of the
central messages in "oth of the ne( science education pro1ects. &enchmarks for
%cience ;iteracy ),,,%, 0DDM* and the :ational %cience -ducation %tandards
):ational Research ouncil, 0DD4* pro1ect "oth strongly suggest that school science
must gi#e students an opportunity to e'perience science authentically, free of the
legends, misconceptions and ideali9ations inherent in the myths a"out the nature of
the scientific enterprise. There must "e increased opportunity for "oth preser#ice and
inser#ice teachers to learn a"out and apply the real rules of the game of science
accompanied "y careful re#ie( of te't"ooks to remo#e the Gcreeping fo' terriersG that
ha#e helped pro#ide an inaccurate #ie( of the nature of science. 6nly "y clearing
a(ay the mist of half7truths and re#ealing science in its full light, (ith kno(ledge of
"oth its strengths and limitations, (ill learners "ecome enamored of the true pageant
of science and "e a"le fairly to 1udge its processes and products. :oteP >illiam
McomasH address is %chool of -ducation7>4$ 0000-, 3ni#ersity of %outhern
alifornia, ;os ,ngeles, , D008D700M0.