There are many accepted methods in science, but there is no single scientific method. There is no single step-by-step “recipe” that is appropriate for every scientific investigation. At the same time, scientists share common principles, values, and standards through which scientific knowledge develops. These include, for example, maintaining meticulous records, adhering to high ethical standards, using logical tools for drawing conclusions (such as identifying themes that emerge from data or applying existing themes to analyze data), recognizing patterns, attending to the socio-cultural aspects of science, and additional considerations such as norms of scientific publication.
It is important to expose learners to the breadth of scientific methods through explicit and reflective engagement, as well as through participation in scientific investigations from different disciplines (e.g., the natural sciences and the social sciences) or through different research approaches (e.g., laboratory experiments, thought experiments, modeling, surveys). Students’ involvement in scientific practices (for example, posing research questions and collecting and analyzing data), together with explicit discourse about scientists’ work and about different ways of conducting scientific research, contributes to an understanding of the complexity of scientific inquiry. Such involvement may deepen learners’ understanding of the components of scientific inquiry and may also enhance motivation to engage in science. For example, when students are required to design a study themselves around a phenomenon that interests them, and when an authentic discussion takes place regarding the different possible ways to conduct the investigation, students may develop greater interest than in situations where they are asked merely to follow pre-prepared instructions for a scientific experiment. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that it is not always possible to implement such investigations with the tools available in the classroom, and that this may constitute a complex challenge for both teachers and students.
Students’ participation in citizen science projects enables them to understand the breadth of scientific methods.
An example of this is the “Radon Gas” Project, in which students are asked to propose creative ideas for how they might measure radon concentration in their homes. Subsequently, they are introduced to a simple method that uses small containers filled with activated charcoal that absorbs radon when the container is opened. Students discuss how they can make informed use of this method in relation to their research questions and contribute data to scientific research by measuring radon concentrations in order to identify hazardous buildings in which radon levels exceed the recommended range.
Deepening and Expansion ▼
Understanding the breadth of scientific methods as part of understanding the nature of science
Many science education researchers, including Dagher and Erduran (2014), McComas (2020), and others, have addressed the idea that understanding the breadth of the scientific method requires, among other things, an understanding of the tools, processes, and products of science. This is one of the important aspects in developing an understanding of the nature of science. This aspect refers, among other things, to the fact that there is no single scientific method, but rather accepted ways of thinking and collective values. Among the many methods accepted in science, one can identify a wide range of practices that scientists view as accepted and universally required for the development of scientific knowledge.
The aspiration to develop an understanding of the multiplicity of scientific methods stems from the desire to encourage participation in the culture of science, alongside providing tools that enable critical examination of scientific research and of scientific and technological development. These capacities are essential for enabling learners to participate in public discourse on everyday issues, to consume scientific and technological information in an informed manner, and to continue deepening their personal knowledge.
Organizing the diversity of scientific methods
In her research, Tsybulsky refers to one way of categorizing the range of scientific methods and notes a possible distinction between experimental science and historical science (Tsybulsky, 2018; Tsybulsky et al., 2018). Experimental science consists of a body of knowledge accumulated through controlled experiments, in which independent variables are manipulated while changes in dependent variables are measured. These experiments enable the testing of a given theory, whose validity is assessed by examining the consistency of its predictive power across experiments. An optimal theory is considered one that constitutes an expression of a general statement or causal law that can be applied across a wide range of phenomena in different contexts. This experimental science methodology requires reproducibility (repetition of the same experiment in different laboratories and corroboration of results) and assumes the existence of entities that are uniform in their nature (such as atoms, molecules, or genes), enabling the formulation of general statements and laws. Another important component of a strong theory is its falsifiability, that is, the specification of evidence that would disprove it.
In contrast, historical science is a unique system of scientific methodological tools used by researchers to reconstruct past events. The focus of this form of science is on tracing processes that occurred in the past (for example, a volcanic eruption), whose effects can be observed in evidence collected in the field (for example, the presence of volcanic rocks formed during eruptions). Evidence is collected through observation of natural remnants in the field, and analysis is conducted according to the principle that the present is the key to understanding the past. That is, inferences about the past are drawn based on contingent processes that can be observed today. In this methodology, manipulation is not possible; rather, researchers can only observe existing field evidence.
Erduran and Dagher (2014) also referred to a possible categorization of scientific methods. They mentioned a table in which Brandon (1994) detailed different characteristics of experimental methods as compared to theoretical methods. His claim was that both experimentation and observation, as well as theoretical work, can be conducted in multiple ways: (a) with manipulation or without manipulation, and (b) through hypothesis testing or through the measurement of parameters.
An explicit, reflective, and context-based pedagogical approach for developing an understanding of the breadth of scientific methods
Understanding the multiplicity of scientific methods is optimally achieved through an explicit and reflective pedagogical approach situated in an authentic context. McComas and colleagues (2020) define what constitutes an explicit pedagogical approach and a reflective pedagogical approach. An explicit pedagogical approach is based on the assumption that teaching about the nature of science should be planned and embedded within learning programs as a central component of learning, rather than as a by-product. As part of this approach, learners’ attention is directed to various aspects of the nature of science through questions, discussions, and explanations in science instruction. A reflective pedagogical approach encourages learners to think about and understand ideas and issues related to the nature of science, and involves them emotionally in the learning process, during which they use prior knowledge to make sense of new stimuli. The learner’s reflective activity leads to personal conclusions regarding aspects of the nature of science, through comparison and mapping of connections between their actions as learners and the actions of scientists. Edmondson and colleagues (2020) define an additional instructional approach, namely teaching within an authentic context. This approach enables demonstration of the full range of scientific practices and methods in which scientists engage, alongside learner involvement in an authentic scientific context and exposure to authentic findings that contribute to scientific knowledge. This authentic context highlights the importance of communication between science learners and scientists, enabling scientists to share how they conduct their work and the research they carry out. This approach is naturally integrated into citizen science projects, which constitute participation in authentic scientific research. In addition, citizen science learning environments provide opportunities for explicit and reflective instruction.
Additional Resources:
Ministry of Education. (2021). The profile of the graduate.
References ▼
Brandon, R. (1994). Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 99 , 59–73.
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2014). Methods and Methodological Rules. In:Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education (pp. 91-111). Springer
Edmondson, E., Burgin, S., Tsybulsky, D., & Maeng, J. (2020). Learning aspects of nature of science through authentic research experiences. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (pp. 659–673). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_36
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Methods and Methodological Rules. In Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education (pp. 91–112). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_5
Kali, Y., (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187-201.
McComas, W. (2020). Principal elements of nature of science: informing science teaching while dispelling the myths. In W. McComas, W. (Ed.), Nature of Science in Science Instruction, pp. 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_3
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Nouri, N. (2020). Nature of science and classroom practice: A review of the literature with implications for effective NOS instruction. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction (pp. 67–111). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_4
Tsybulsky, D. (2018). Comparing the impact of two science-as-inquiry methods on the NOS understanding of high-school biology students. Science and Education, 27(7–8), 661–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0001-0
Tsybulsky, D., Dodick, J., & Camhi, J. (2018). The effect of field trips to university research labs on Israeli high school students’ NOS understanding. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1247–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9601-3