"Real Science"

Chemistry Matters: The Life of a Chemist (video clip)

Are "traditional" high school science teachers doing a disservice to students by neglecting to tell the truth about science? 

This Chemistry Matters video clip shows REAL chemists doing REAL chemistry and it is not as straight forward and dull as too many high school students perceive chemistry to be. This misconception of science having clear solutions, being routine, and irrelevant to every day life that students too often have when they leave their high school chemistry classroom (or sadly by the end of the first quarter of their chemistry course) needs to end. Science teachers need to make it a priority to incorporate the truth about science and what it has to offer to their students and potentially future scientists. 

The nature of science is discussed in this video by numerous chemists who all address important concepts. High school science educators should discuss these nature of science concepts in the classroom (preferably on a regular basis). Just a few of the nature of science (NOS) concepts mentioned in this film include; collaboration, curiosity, creativity, interesting (science is not a 9-5 job), and that being a scientist is similar to being a musician (composing explanations and/or advancements). 

Yes, learning the basics about science can be challenging and dry to many. However, it is an educator's challenge/duty to incorporate the real aspects of science into the learning of the basics and applications of science and engage students in science the way REAL scientists do. Now we (science educators) know what needs to be done, so how do we do it?

Additional Chemistry Matter Video Clips

Article related to presenting science in an interesting and thought-provoking fashion:
Backus, Lisa. (2005). A Year Without Procedures. The Science Teacher. Vol 72(7),
pages54-58.
Broad suggestions for implementation of science content:
Student-centered learning
Guided Inquiry (esp. labs)
Active Mental Engagement
Higher-order thinking (HOTS)

NSTA Position Statement: The Nature of Science

National Science Teachers Association Position Statement: The Nature of Science (2000). 

This position statement provides great insight into the key components to understand the Nature of Science (NOS). I have read numerous articles on the topic of NOS, but feel that this one is a must to revisit if one already understands NOS and also helpful for those new to the ideas.

Reflections

Science "evolves" thus one needs to think critically about scientific knowledge. Yet, many components of scientific knowledge have been and remain widely accepted, that does not ensure "correctness".  (Science is reliable and tentative)

The process of science is NOT linear. The process of science has many shared elements or patterns but there is not a single universal scientific method.

Science is exciting and imaginative. Many scientists use creativity to spark or ignite the production of scientific knowledge. Creativity may arise while searching for another approach or explanation or may be sparked unintentionally by the need to explain something one stumbled upon.

Science cannot nor should attempt to explain the supernatural. Science is limited. Science is the study of the natural world.

The difference between theories and laws (formed to organize science). Laws are the "what" of how aspects of the natural world work. Theories are the "why" of aspects in the natural world. Not all laws have theories. Theories do NOT become laws!

Science is a collaborative endeavor. People across the world provide resources (contributions) for others.

The process of science is contextualized. Science is impacted by social and cultural contexts. (i.e. Stem-cell research) Scientists have personal biases and varied conceptual frameworks (prior experiences and understandings). Peer review is a component of science that helps compensate for personal scientists' biases.

Continue to question and think critically about "basic" science (knowing for knowledge sake). Science evolves and one should question the foundational scientific knowledge.

Science does NOT equal technology. Science impacts technology. Basic science (knowing for knowledge sake) vs. applied science (applying science for practical purposes (improve the process and/or outcome/product) is technology.)