Embedded Files
Title: Dogs and Turnips
Principle(s) Investigated: Scientific Method, Induction, Epistemology of Science, Logic,
8th Grade: Investigation and Experimentation (Cal Standards)
9. b. Evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of data.
9th-12th Grade: Investigation and Experimentation (Cal Standards)
1. c. Identify possible reasons for inconsistent results, such as sources of error or uncontrolled
conditions.
d. Formulate explanations by using logic and evidence.
g. Recognize the usefulness and limitations of models and theories as scientific representations of reality.
k. Recognize the cumulative nature of scientific evidence.
n. Know that when an observation does not agree with an accepted scientific theory, the observation is sometimes mistaken or fraudulent (e.g., the Piltdown Man fossil or unidentified flying objects and that the theory is sometimes wrong (e.g., the Ptolemaic model of the movement of the Sun, Moon and Planets.)
Next Generation Science Standards
Dimension 1: Scientific and Engineering Practices
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering)
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
Dimension 2: Cross Cutting Concepts that have Common Applications Across Fields
1. Patterns
2. Cause and effect: mechanism and explanation
Materials: Envelopes
Printed Sentence strip with each word cut into separate "puzzle pieces"
Worksheets
Procedure:
1. Explain activity
2. Form students into groups.
3. Pass out envelopes filled with "puzzle pieces."
4. Have them randomly draw 5 pieces and then give time (5 minutes~) to write hypothesis as to what the
sentence is given the five pieces that they have.
5. Have them randomly draw 5 more pieces for a total of 10 pieces and then give time (5 minutes~) to write
hypothesis with the new information they have now obtained and can combine with the previous
information.
6. Have them again randomly draw 5 more pieces for a total of 15 pieces and give them time (5 minutes~)
to write a hypothesis that incorporates the new information they have obtained.
7. There are two parts to the last step. First have them remove all the remaining puzzle pieces and have
them try to construct a final hypothesis as to whatever they think the sentence is. Secondly have them
depict the sentence they constructed as their final hypothesis.
8. Collect envelopes containing all puzzle pieces from the groups.
9. Go over the activity with them, extend to real life examples, conclude.
Student prior knowledge:
What I like about this activity is that the students do not need any prior knowledge. This is a logic based activity designed to illustrate the nature of science. I suppose they need some prior knowledge to understand real world examples at the end, but that kind of knowledge should be basic and everyone should have it or at least be able to understand.
What is really needed in this activity is critical thinking skills/logic. I do not think this activity would be suitable for younger children because I do not think they have the logic skills to grasp the principals of this activity. I think 6th grade would probably be the youngest you could attempt this activity, but even then that might be a little too early. I think this activity would be most appropriate from 7th all the way up to 12th grade.
Explanation:
Philosophy Behind Activity
The whole point of this activity is to illustrate the nature of science. We don't have a cheat sheet that specifies all the physical laws that govern our universe. What we have to do is work backwards (induction) and try to put together the pieces together in a logical fashion that is consistent with all the relevant information. We take specific examples (observations) and then make hypotheses to guess at what's causing our observations to be the way they are. We then test our hypotheses with experimentation and if they hold up well and are robust they become theories.
While a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) is relatively solid, if new information comes in that contradicts our theory, we have to revise our theory so it can be consistent with our past observations and our new observations. In this vein, science is always a work in progress, it does not take any monolithic stance, everything is open to revision, it is a self-correcting process.
Description of Activity
This activity is to illustrate this process. We start with the sentence "The big fat red dog walked into the little white house on the prairie carrying a bone and ate his bowl of turnips." We then cut this sentence up into puzzle pieces with each individual word representing a puzzle piece. The puzzle pieces are placed into envelopes and distributed to the groups. We have the students make predictions as to what the sentence is with 5, 10, 15 and finally all the puzzle pieces. Each group gets the exact same set of puzzle pieces and hence has the ability to yield the same final hypothesis during the final stage when all puzzle pieces are turned over. What actually happens though is quite different, students come up with alternate and often equally viable hypotheses.
Logistics
The first thing you are going to need to do is make a sentence. I just used the sentence provided because it provides a lot of elements that are easy for the students to draw, but you could make up any sentence you wanted. If you choose to have the students draw a picture of the sentence at the end, be sure to pick a sentence that has things they can actually illustrate. Remember you are going to be cutting each word into an individual puzzle piece so you want to keep the sentence to a reasonable length to spare yourself a third grade project and to abide by time constraints within the classroom. The rest of the activity can be read from the procedures and does not need exposition.
I can't stress the importance of connecting this activity to real world examples. We want to give the tools to think through things critically and evaluate claims in a logical and consistent way. Often science or "the research" is thrown out as a justification and people accept it without examining it. Sometimes methodological or logical errors can be present, and we want to teach students to be sensitive to them and not just take something on faith because someone says "science proves it" or my new personal favorite "the research tells us."
Questions & Answers:
1. If we have to keep revising theories what's the point of even coming up with them if they are
always wrong?
A: I think this is looking at it the wrong way. Many times theories are not wrong rather not as
accurate as they could be. For example even if there is some corner of the universe where the
laws of physics just fall apart, for our purposes right now they work and are integral to the
advanced technologies we enjoy today. Function over form, as long as they are useful to us that is
reason to keep coming up with them.
2. So does this prove the existence of God since science is limited?
A: First off all I'd like to preface this by saying I'm agnostic and I really think it go either way, I guess I'll see
when I'm dead, so I have no agenda with this question. I don't think this proves that there is definitely a
God. For example, what if someone came out of the woodwork and claimed to be God. He
demonstrated all these crazy powers and gained many followers. Then he suddenly died. Upon
examination of his body it was discovered he had a x-men type mutation going on that gave him all
these superpowers. Our observations of these superpowers gave rise to the hypothesis he was God,
but upon the revelation of new information (examination of body) we discovered these superpowers
were a result of mutations to his genetic code. (new observations inconsistent with previous theory, so
we come up with new theory). My point is we don't have the universal plan and cannot actually see
causality at work, we are inferring general principles from specific observations which leaves us
vulnerable to inferring a spurious variable is the cause (in this case him being divine).
3. We don't have time to scrutinize the methodology and procedure of every claim we hear hence we don't
need to know this, so isn't it a waste of time, wouldn't it be better spent teaching something more
tangible?
A: That's true, but that's not what I expect out of this activity. Of course you have time constraints and can't
analyze every claim, but that doesn't mean because you have time constraints you won't want or need
to analyze any claim. Hence the importance of understanding the logic of the scientific method. More
practically I think this activity teaches us to think about our own assumptions. I often make quick
assumptions or theories off a few observations only to find later I was completely wrong. I think many
people do this, so it teaches us to be vigilant of lazy analysis that we are so often prone too. Some
more specific examples of this are illustrated below in the next section.
Applications to Everyday Life:
1. The Sleepy Classmate
If someone seems sleepy in class (observation) you may assume they are lazy (theory) or don't care about the class. You later find out they work 3 jobs to pay for the teaching program on top of doing all the homework for the class so when they come to class they are exhausted (new information not consistent with theory). Their sleepiness comes not from boredom but from the circumstances under which they are attending the program. With this new information, you would change your opinion of them from lazy/unmotivated to hard-working and driven.(updated theory)
2. Fixing My Computer
One time my computer started acting crazy. I had installed a few new programs.(observations) I made a hypothesis that Program A in particular which had the ugliest code I'd ever seen was somehow interacting with my system and causing things to go crazy. (hypothesis) I removed the Program A and my computer seemed fine so I assumed I had gotten the problem.(experimentation confirming hypothesis=theory). Then it started acting up again.(new observations) This contradicted my theory that Program A was responsible so I clearly had to revise my theory. I removed my second suspect Program B and all the problems stopped.(new hypothesis+successful experimentation=new theory)
3. Teaching
I was not a good student in high school in terms of work ethic. I would often not pay attention, talk, and not participate. (observations) Teachers assumed that I would be near the bottom of the class (theory). I then did well on tests and they were forced to revise their theory. (new observations force change in theory).
Photographs:
Videos:None.
References:
1. My master teacher Allison Shiff (Nobel Middle School)
2. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/dynamic/session4/sess4_act1.htm (The website she found it)
(Authors are Al Janulaw and Judy Scotchmoore.)
3. http://www.middleschoolscience.com/turnips.pdf
(where I got the worksheet words in cleaner PDF form to print out)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse