TRIED AND TRUE

Teaching the practice of science,

unteaching the “scientific method”
by Konstantinos Alexakos

Does the scientific method

equal science?
During my first year of teaching science, I was intro-
duced to an article in Discover magazine about “hot-
heads.” This article, dated April 1, 1995, detailed the
discovery by wildlife biologist Aprile Pazzo of some
tiny, molelike mammals in Antarctica called “hot-
heads” that use their hot-plate-like foreheads to tunnel
through the ice under penguins and eat them (Folger
1995). Their foreheads get so hot (hence their name)
that they can melt the ice before the penguins can
waddle away. With these and other clues (the impos-
sibly high body temperature that melts ice, the names
of the scientist, Aprile Pazzo [pazzo means crazy/fool]
and the explorer, Philippe Poisson [poisson means
fish], the reader is meant to figure out that the entire
article (including the existence of the hotheads) was
published as an April Fool’s prank. I loved it and start-
ed asking my students to read it. While some students
caught on to the prank quickly, it came as a surprise
to me that most needed some nudging. Still, this ar-
ticle served as a nice icebreaker at the beginning of
the year, helping students to be more questioning and might be. To my astonishment, what emerged through
become more inquiry oriented. discussions was that as a result of constant drilling in
Interestingly, the same students who did not realize the scientific method, many students had been taught
on their own that such creatures cannot possibly exist to think of science as doing “cookbook” lab activities
often used the “scientific method” to justify their expla- devoid of anything stimulating or creative. Science and
nations. The article itself does not explicitly mention scientists for them could not be imaginative and funny,
such a method. It starts off with Pazzo’s observation and anything labeled “science” had to be believed. Such
of a penguin being attacked by the creatures, which assumptions and beliefs had helped create and foster
she then follows up with more observations. To these disconnects between these students and science.
students, sounding scientific was somehow closely It was just such mechanical teaching of science
connected with the scientific method and vice versa. that prompted education associations and scientists to
What became clear through our discussions was that explicitly repudiate the concept of one size fits all sci-
these students seemed to assume that if one follows entific method. NSTA’s Standards for Science Teacher
some predetermined, universal steps (any permutation Preparation specifically states that no such method
of hypothesis, experiment, observation, results, etc.) of exists, noting that inquiry should not be reduced to
the scientific method, one would automatically arrive the specific steps, but should be dynamic and reach
at the right answer, no matter how bizarre that answer beyond isolated procedures (NSTA 1998; 2003). Simi-

74 SCIENCE SCOPE

FIGURE 1 Teacher notes for the density lab
1. Materials (per group of students): cup of pennies
(~50 each) of mixed years, graduated cylinders of
various diameters, triple-beam balances, source
of water, paper towels. The materials for all of the
groups should be grouped together.
2. Each group of students is asked to take the equip-
ment and materials they think are necessary to find
the density of 10, 20, and 30 pennies. They are
asked to perform three trials for each quantity, using
different pennies each time. Students then use their
results to predict the density of one penny. (More
advanced classes can skip the step with the 10, 20,
and 30 pennies, and just be asked to find the den-
sity of a penny using at least three different trials.)
3. When students are asked to decide which graduated
cylinders to use with no instructions how to use them,
they have to think of how to measure penny volume,
and then which cylinder will give them a useful change
of water volume when they add the pennies.
4. As students begin to conduct this activity, the
teacher can carry out either whole-group discus-
sions or a whole-class discussion on what the
operational definition of volume and density are and
how to calculate each. In the process of doing the
activity, students should be asked to modify their
operational definition of density as a result of their
experience, which should help them reframe and
revise their procedures.
larly, the National Science Education Standards state
that “this standard [Science as Inquiry] should not be
interpreted as advocating a ‘scientific method.’ The
conceptual and procedural abilities suggest a logical
progression, but they do not imply a rigid approach
to scientific inquiry” (NRC 1996, p. 6). In contrast to
the unimaginative structure of the scientific method,
Thomas Kuhn (1996) argued that science is not only
about increasing the accumulated amount of knowl-
edge, but of changing its meaning through novel and
creative approaches that fundamentally change what
has already been accumulated. Similarly, Stephen J.
Gould (1994) suggested that while variation and indi-
viduality among humans may seem very different from
TRIED AND TRUE
5. It is very likely that each one of the nine trials each
group does will provide a different result given the
possible combinations of pennies. Often enough,
students reconcile this by taking the average to find
the density of one. I personally prefer that students
do their own (individual) written lab report before
pointing out their differing trial results, and use this
discrepancy in their results as a lesson about ques-
tioning their findings.
6. The whole-group discussion on the results of stu-
dents’ labs should be framed as questions by the
teacher so that students begin to see the discrepan-
cies and inconsistencies on their own (rather than
just being told). Possible questions could be about
are the definitions and differences between preci-
sion and accuracy, the meaning of density, and
whether the density of one penny is different than
the density of two pennies and why.
7. Students can then be asked to investigate the offi-
cial composition and density of the pennies, explain
their results in light of this, and formulate possible
alternative trials for finding their densities.
8. By doing the trials again without mixing the be-
fore-1982 and the after-1982 pennies (and not
using the 1982 pennies at all), students should be
able to arrive at the conclusion that the density does
not depend on the number of pennies used.
the “objectivity” of science, in the long run, personal
idiosyncrasies and quirks are often what guide solu-
tions to scientific questions. He viewed the hypotheti-
cal objectivity and purity of the scientific method as a
self-serving and harmful mythology.
Yet in my experience, many teachers continue to
teach the scientific method not only because they too
were taught to believe in it, but also because it is still
emphasized in many science textbooks. In a recent
review of high school chemistry books, for example,
almost all were found to “explicitly convey naive rep-
resentations” of the scientific method (Abd-El-Khalick,
Waters, and Le 2008, p. 850). To help me get a better
understanding of the underlying arguments, as well as
S u m m e r 2010 75
 TRIED AND TRUE

create new opportunities for my students to experience

Sample template for open-
FIGURE 2 ended laboratory report
more inquisitive approaches to “doing” science, I began
to explore other resources, especially the “Ten Myths
of Science” by William McComas (1996).
Below is a sample template I ask my students to fol-
low in writing up their investigations. Because many McComas’s Ten Myths of Science
students are not familiar with open inquiry, I find that
Students’ reactions to the hotheads article changed
at the beginning they need a lot of guidance and I
for the better when I introduced them to the “Ten
spend time directly facilitating the activity. As the se-
Myths of Science” article prior to asking them to read
mester progresses, students become more comfort-
the hotheads piece. As the title suggests, McComas
able working with such an approach and their work
argues against some of the enduring misconceptions
becomes more self-directed.
about science, including the widespread belief that
there is a universal scientific method, and asserts that
1. What is this lab about? Discuss what you are
teachers should be cautious of how they use the term
investigating and why (your goals).
“hypothesis” in school lab activities (“prediction” may
2. Explain how you went about investigating it.
instead be more appropriate). Especially apropos to
a. Discuss the steps your group followed in
some of the attacks on science today, he also address-
designing and conducting this experiment,
es why a theory in science is called a theory and a
including your setup, the equipment and tools
law a law, and that there is no hierarchy or order of
you used, and how you used them.
progression. Unfortunately, the scientific method, as
b. Use drawings to illustrate your work.
many students have come to understand it, embod-
3. List the data you collected.
ies and perpetuates many of the problematic ideas he
a. Use tables, graphs, or any other charts that
writes against. While students are drilled on the steps
may be necessary to organize and present
of the scientific method, they still have little under-
your data.
standing of practices in science.
4. Analyze the data you have collected.
The McComas article generates many healthy
a. Do your data address your goals?
discussions on the nature and practice of science, the
b. Justify your results.
methods scientists use to investigate science, and how
5. Conclusions
science as perceived by scientists is different from
a. What did you do?
popular understandings of science. It is not uncommon
b. What observations did you make and what are
for students to complain that what McComas exposes
your findings?
as myths often represented what they were taught as
c. How do they meet (or not meet) your goals?
science. They were led to believe that science is static
d. Are the findings what you expected? Explain.
and uninteresting, and that they would be penalized if
e. Discuss the different strategies you attempted
they did not follow the steps of the scientific method.
in setting up and carrying out your work (and
Many students report their science fair projects being
how successful they were), your analysis, any
judged on how well they followed the prescribed steps,
unexpected results, errors, possible alternative
and their laboratory experiences as being exclusively
findings, and explanations.
verification activities that made science boring and
f. Discuss any revisions that you think may be
uninteresting, creating the impression that, as one of
necessary in regard to your methods and
my students put it, science has “no room for creativity.”
findings.
They are surprised to learn that science is a creative
6. Reflections
process, where the methods and outcomes are often
a. What do you think of this experience? Why?
not known from the start. As a result of the controversy
b. What did you learn?
and excitement generated by reading the McComas
c. How did this activity help you (or not)?
piece, students begin to see science in a more positive
d. What were some of the issues and how did
light and become more comfortable with questioning
you deal with them?
“objective” observations and claims. Students have an
7. Suggestions?
easier time arriving at the conclusion that “hotheads”

76 SCIENCE SCOPE

are fictional, and that the article is meant for them to
be more inquisitive and question what is presented as
“science.”
Developing inquisitive habits
with open-ended activities
Even with the myths and hotheads discussions at the
beginning of the semester, I still find that students
have a hard time operationalizing their newly found
understanding of scientific thinking and in applying
it to topics they are studying. For instance, when do-
ing lab activities, they are just as comfortable with
odd measurements and results as they are with any
outcome (e.g., the weight of a 500 g cube is 500 lbs).
At the same time, and not surprisingly, students still
manage to get the “correct” results in cookbook lab
experiments even when the equipment they use is
not in perfect condition. They generally know what
they should get; the answer is often in the stated hy-
pothesis. Because many students deeply believe that
science can be reduced to a method of duplicating the
right answers through a prescribed set of steps, and
that science does not have to make sense, their lab re-
sults often go unquestioned, even when these results
are contrary to what they expect.
To encourage students to be more inquisitive and
questioning of lab results (and move them away from
the rigidity they ascribe to the scientific method), the
activities they are assigned become more and more
open ended as the semester progresses, and the results
not so obvious. When studying waves, for instance, I
distribute Slinkies and ask pairs of students to come up
with some different wave characteristics. The first time
I did this, I was surprised to see students just holding
the Slinkies, totally bewildered as to how to start since
I had not given them any other directions. For them,
science did not connect with having fun or exploring. I
therefore encouraged students to just start playing with
the Slinkies. Once they started having fun, I asked each
pair of students to carefully stretch the slinky between
them and start shaking it. Once they got into the activ-
ity, creating and investigating waves became fun and
educational.
Another exercise I often use is finding the density
of pennies that, unknown to students, have a variety
of compositions (see Figure 1). Many students are
already familiar with the formula for density (mass/
volume), even if they are a bit unsure of the concept and
TRIED AND TRUE
its implications. Students are provided with cups of pen-
nies (each having approximately 50 pennies of mixed
mint years), graduated cylinders of various diameters,
and metric triple-beam balances. Each student group is
asked to find the densities of batches of 10, 20, and 30
pennies and, using these results, determine what the
density of a single penny may be. For equipment, each
of the groups is asked to pick on their own whatever
they think is necessary from what I have provided for
the whole class. Rather than accept the formula as a
definition, I ask them to come up with an operational
definition of density (describing in simple words the
actions through which one finds a numerical value for
it) as they are doing the activity. This leads to a discus-
sion about what mass and volume themselves are. Stu-
dents’ operational definitions for density provide them
with a guide for how to start the activity and solve for
density. Because the discussion is taking place at the
beginning of the investigation, it provides students with
a chance to reformulate their definitions as a result of
their hands-on experience. This reformulation in turn
helps them further restructure how they carry out
the activity. What students are not told is that pennies
minted before 1982 have a different metal content and
therefore density than those minted after 1982 (pennies
minted in 1982 may be of either density).
Students have the oddest ideas about masses and
volumes and how to measure them. For example, many
students think that different quantities of pennies will
have different densities based on the number of pen-
nies (not because they are aware of the differences
in composition). Having students decide on how to
carry out the investigation and what equipment to
use (they are not provided with instructions) opens
further discussion about the tools we use in a lab and
why, as well as about concepts such as precision and
accuracy. Asking students to ponder what to do and ar-
rive at and implement their own decisions and choices
makes concepts more salient and, judging by their
excitement, a lot more interesting and enjoyable than
traditional labs. Furthermore, it encourages students
to work collaboratively, as they need to rely on each
other to design and implement such activities.
Once students have made their trials for each of the
three sets of pennies, I ask them to write a report of
their results. Because of the differences in composition
and the possible combinations of pre- and post-1982
pennies, each one of the trials is typically found to give
a different density, but this does not often raise much
S u m m e r 2010 77
 TRIED AND TRUE
concern. Sometimes, students writing their report (see
Figure 2) may be curious as to the discrepancies and
look up a penny’s density on the internet, but (unfortu-
nately) this does not happen frequently. When I return
their reports, I challenge them on the discrepancies
among their results by asking them to explain how and
why they could have gotten such diverse answers. This
leads to additional discourse on what may be an accept-
able percentage of error, and sources of errors such as
process and equipment. Having students think about
the activity allows for further rethinking of the scientific
method and science processes in general, especially on
the question of how we deal with discrepancies.
While the hotheads article challenges the irrefutabil-
ity of the results of the scientific method, students’ belief
in it is so deeply ingrained in how they view science that
it takes a lot of undoing to effectively contest it. The
penny-density activity contributes in-depth, inquiry-
generated discussion about density. This allows for
further conversations about other deeply held student
beliefs on density, such as that a single penny can have
a different density than 20 pennies of the same composi-
tion (quantity should not matter, only composition).
It is OK to be baffled
What to investigate and what to include in the find-
ings can be very messy and is a personal decision. It is
not unusual for scientists at the frontier of knowledge
to be baffled and get into intense arguments. As Neil
deGrasse Tyson once quipped: “Stop the presses! To
scientists, the universe is a source of endless puzzle-
ment” (Tyson 2002, p. 22). Past and present challeng-
es such as climate change, bacterial drug resistance,
genetic engineering, the search for life on other
planets, the treatment of cancer, and the creation of
alternate energy sources need not just empirical ex-
perimentation and evidence but also original, imagi-
native, and creative new approaches. The Earth sys-
tem, for example, is made up of components that are
too dynamic and complex, with many feedbacks and
interactions, to be resolved through the reduction-
ist methodology of the scientific method. Almost 50
years ago, Joseph Schwab argued against the teach-
ing of science as a collection of facts that are “treated
as self-existing givens” (Schwab 1960, p. 178). He
argued for teaching students in ways that would pre-
pare them to be comfortable when facing new, novel
situations. He believed that when students are taught
78 SCIENCE SCOPE
science as undeniable and unchanging truths, it leads
them to cynicism toward science when they discover
later in life that this is not so.
Empirical results and experimental observations
and evidence are the cornerstones of today’s sciences.
While scientists do use such methods and results to
justify their findings, the objectification and pontifica-
tion of the empirical method as portrayed through the
dogmatism of the scientific method is a dangerous
and misleading fallacy. Gould (1987) argues that the
scientific method is an oversimplified process of how
investigations are carried out in science. He points
out that unlike how the scientific method is taught
in schools, many actual scientific investigations take
place outside of the laboratory, and many scientific
inferences are not limited to direct vision. He cites
as examples the evolution of dinosaurs into birds and
the creation of the Himalayas; these phenomena took
place too far in the past for anybody to have seen them
or be able to reproduce them experimentally. Still, the
theories of evolution and plate tectonics are not any
less scientific. Though engaging in a few open-ended
activities during one semester may not always get stu-
dents to move away from the scientific method and be
more inquisitive about their lab results, it does help in
opening them up to such ideas. In open-ended activi-
ties, the question, method, and solution could all be
left open (Schwab 1960). While there is a lot of initial
resistance by students to noncookbook-type activities,
using scientific principles to question and analyze
claims becomes easier as the class progresses; many
students come to actually prefer them.
In investigating how seasoned scientists reason as
they seek solutions to their own science questions, Kevin
Dunbar (2000) found that rather than thinking alone,
they engage together with others in their reasoning, and
that they pay extra attention to unusual and unexpected
results. Using inquiry-type activities in middle school to
challenge and encourage students to question as well
as co-construct with their peers their own methods of
resolving science questions helps promote and develop
scientific thinking and practices. n
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., M. Waters, and A.-P. Le. 2008. Represen-
tations of nature of science in high school chemistry text-
books over the past four decades. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 45 (7): 835–55.
Dunbar, K. 2000. How scientists think in the real world:
 TRIED AND TRUE

Implications for science education. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology 21 (1): 49–58.
Folger, T. 1995. Strange molelike animal melts ice tunnels
with its head. Discover 16: 14–15. http://discover
magazine.com/1995/apr/01-molelike-animal-melts-ice-
tunnels-with-its-head.
Gould, S.J. 1987. Darwinism defined: The difference be-
tween fact and theory. Discover 8 (1): 64–70.
Gould, S.J. 1994. In the mind of the beholder. Natural His-
tory 103 (2): 14–23.
Kuhn, T.S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd
ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McComas, W.F. 1996. Ten myths of science: Reexamining
what we think we know about the nature of science.
School Science and Mathematics 96: 10–16.
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science
education standards. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emies Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 1998. Stan-
dards for science teacher preparation. Arlington, VA: NSTA.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 2003. Stan-
dards for science teacher preparation, revised edition.
Arlington, VA: NSTA.
Schwab, J.J. 1960. Inquiry, the science teacher, and the
educator. School Review 68 (2): 176–95.
Tyson, N.D. 2002. On being baffled. Natural History 111 (4): 22.
Resources
The composition of the cent—www.usmint.gov/about_the_
mint/fun_facts/index.cfm?action=fun_facts2
Konstantinos Alexakos (alexakosk@brooklyn.
cuny.edu) is an assistant professor in the School of
Education at Brooklyn College, CUNY, in Brooklyn,
New York.

Let NSTA help transform your office--

from chaotic to orderly...
with new journal slipcases. By organizing
your issues by year, you’ll give your
bookshelves a professional look and be able
to find favorite journal issues with ease.
Each slipcase holds one year’s worth of
issues and is embossed with the name of the
publication and year. Slipcases are currently
available for years 2004–2009.

Member: $12.95
Non-member: $19.95

Additional 10% discount for

purchasing 2 or more years.
Offer good through September 1, 2010

To order visit www.nsta.org/store.

S u m m e r 2010 79