Why working scientifically isn’t scientific

On the surface, this looks like exactly the sort of thing young people should be learning: how scientists work and what citizens need to know about science to make informed democratic and personal decisions. But the way the national curriculum sequences, prioritises and explains working scientifically isn’t actually scientific at all.

The model of working scientifically presented in the English national curriculum is misleading. Many working scientists spend time in laboratories following very strict procedures – analysing samples, for example. The few scientists making new discoveries are building on specialised knowledge. They use combinations of well-developed procedures using complex apparatus, often operated by specialist technicians. This is the opposite of what’s presented to school students.

Cognitive science points the way

One of the last things postgraduate scientists learn is to design experiments. Before they can do this successfully, they carry out countless laboratory procedures, mastering techniques which eventually act as models for their own experiments. Yet the national curriculum expects children to design experiments from key stage 1, before they know much science and have seen how scientists design experiments.

Modern cognitive science has shown over the last half-century that our working memories can only handle a limited amount of new information. Asking five year-olds to think about new scientific ideas while carrying out novel activities of their own design in a group might be fun, but doesn’t lead to learning.

We learn best when new material is carefully structured to build on prior knowledge

Educational research confirms that when learners spend significant classroom time designing their own experiments, they learn less science. There are more effective ways of learning how to work scientifically.

Francis Bacon first presented the philosophical model underpinning the working scientifically approach in his 1620 work Novum organum. His view was that we develop scientific knowledge by making observations and then using inductive reasoning to interpret them. His philosophy was part of the foundation of modern science, but our understanding of scientific practice has developed significantly since.

A forward-thinking approach

Instead of building working scientifically around methods of experimental enquiry, we should focus on experiments which illustrate the concept. These may be historical experiments, or simpler, clearer demonstrations. The purpose is not to allow learners to work out the concept for themselves – it takes too long, is too unreliable and is too difficult for most – but to demonstrate why we believe the concept is true.

We learn best when new material is carefully structured to build on prior knowledge. So we need to start with simple ideas, ensuring learners develop the knowledge and skills to progress to more sophisticated and complex concepts. When teaching new ideas and techniques, we should carefully break them down into small elements, model them and then get students to practise. We also need to give them precise feedback.

We should carefully structure teaching learners how scientists work. Start simple, showing children how students develop into scientists by gradually knowing more and being able to do more. Show them that people like them can have rewarding science careers. Show them scientists working collaboratively, in a laboratory, but also in libraries, at seminars and at conferences.

Teaching young people how science works is important for future careers in science and because imparting knowledge about science will help them make informed choices as adults and citizens.

My alternative approach to working scientifically builds on an understanding of how professional scientists really work, as well as the modern understanding of how scientific knowledge is created and evaluated and, finally, on how we learn new and complex ideas.