Science "Observations"

It's a while before we'll actually start doing science experiments with my kids, but I have several books on hand for elementary science ideas and I glance through them now and then for fun. And I've come to a conclusion: most of what they suggest are not science "experiments." They're science "observations." Think about it: they have kids set an ice cube on a plate and see it melt, then teach them about the states of matter. And that's great... for an observation. It can spark interest and make information stick. It can be very fun and entertaining (does anyone else have fond memories of dissecting owl pellets?). But it's not an _experiment_.

This is a little tricky, because some science "experiments" done by professionals are observations. And if you want to call these little observations "experiments," that's perfectly fine. Really. Just don't, please don't, try to use observations to teach the scientific method.

We've all been there. We're watching ice melt, and this is Science, so we'll use the Scientific Method! Child, please make a hypothesis about what will happen to this ice.

The kid either already knows, and thus thinks, "This is stupid," or doesn't have any idea, and thus thinks, "I am stupid." (Yes, I'm oversimplifying hugely here, but this was my elementary school experience with science.)

Then, after forcing the child to guess, we assign a procedure, a recipe to follow, and ask the child to observe the results and draw conclusions. What's the difference between results and conclusions? Surprise: there isn't one in an observation! That's why you had so much trouble with this as a kid! This only exists in a real experiment!

So what is a real experiment? What's different about it from what I just described, which is what most of us did in science class? (I know I did, right up through undergraduate work in college - at least there, my recipe-following was part of a real experiment for a professor).

A real experiment starts with observation.

I put that as it's own paragraph so that you would reflect a little. _A real experiment starts with observation._ Do the observation on its own, for its own sake, without forcing it into the formula of the scientific method, where it was never meant to be. Observe, and then ask, "Why?"

That's the second step. Why does ice melt on a plate? What makes that happen?

Now, this is something you could easily look up without an experiment. But let's say you really want to figure it out yourself. _Now_ you can generate a hypothesis. Actually, generate a lot of hypotheses. All you can.

Maybe it's a reaction between ice and plates? Ice and air? Ice and light? Ice and time? Ice and temperature? What else could it be?

Now, pick one of these ideas and design a way to test it. Not a recipe - your own plan. Hour could you show it was true? More importantly, how could you show it was not true?

(As an aside, please, _please_ teach them that falsifying is the way to go. Science is about trying to disprove hypotheses. You want to try to show that it's not true. Your experimental design will be much better.)

So you hypothesize that ice melts because of something to do with plates. Well, if that's true, then ice next to the plate on some other surface won't melt. If it's not true, ice will melt anywhere. Let's set out lots of ice cubes next to each other on plates, paper plates, grass, concrete, sand, glass bowls, plastic dishes, everything we can find, and see what happens.

Results? They all melted. But some melted faster than others. Hmm...

Conclusion: it's not plates that makes ice melt. But different surfaces make ice melt differently. I wonder why...

And it starts all over again.

That's the scientific method. That's the beauty and the fun of science. Show it to your kids! Have fun with it! And please don't squeeze the life out of it by trying to teach it through observations. Observe, yes, as much as you can. And then do experiments to learn more. That's science.