Gather and Interpret Data...

Gather and Interpret Data...

I was in a workshop and one of the teachers spoke about still wanting to get the difference between the ‘gather’ and the ‘interpret’ of this capability. We sometimes call this “I see, I think” although we do add “I wonder” on the end! I wrote this up as a word doc with pretty pictures and all but thought the test might be interesting for others :-)

To me, the ‘interpret’ is about students starting to think about their observations, drawing on their prior knowledge and science knowledge to make sense of what they can see. Students might watch an experiment, then start to make sense of it à this might lead to some more questions, or trying out the experiment a different way to see if the results are the same or even challenge their thinking –could there be a different explanation for what we’ve seen? In the “Use Evidence” capability, the explanation is deeper and is also based on the evidence seen (whilst inferences are where children can think about what might be happening without any proof). Children are learning about explanations and how to build them, test them and challenge them. From this, children will understand better scientific explanations when they come across them on the web or in a book –do we think the explanation is sound or robust? Building an awareness of what an explanation is helps them interpret them!

An example of this process could be illustrated by a child observing a soda water and raisins experiment. I asked her, as raisins bobbed up and down, what could she see. She talked about seeing raisins on the bottom of the glass, lots of bubbles going up as well as two raisins ‘jumping up and down’. I then asked her “So what do you think is going on?” Her answer was that the raisins were jumping up, getting a breath of air and then sinking back down –just like how she would when she’s in the swimming pool. Besides being a lovely answer, this is a great example of an inference. She tagged some prior knowledge onto what she had observed. However, this could never be the explanation –there’s no evidence that raisins breathe! As it was, we did cut open a raisin to have a look inside but couldn’t find any lungs –so she decided raisins must have gills! For her explanation as to why the raisins were going up and down, we would need clear evidence of raisins needing to breathe –how come some raisins never came up to the surface? Other children inferred it was the bubbles that caused the raisins to go up. It’s an inference until we can prove it.

From the TKI site on Gather and Interpret Data… (http://scienceonline.tki.org.nz/)

“Science knowledge is based on data derived from direct, or indirect, observations of the natural physical world and often includes measuring something. An inference is a conclusion you draw from observations – the meaning you make from observations. Understanding the difference is an important step towards being scientifically literate.”

Science knowledge is based on data derived from direct, or indirect, observations of the natural physical world. We gather data by using our senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell - to make observations. Making careful observations often includes measuring something. Observations are influenced by what you already know. 

This nicely morphs into the Use Evidence capability about making an explanation. It’s also a good example of students critiquing

Interpreting data involves making meaning from observations. A conclusion you draw from observations is called an inference. To help students differentiate between observation and inference, ask:

Is it something we can see, hear, smell, touch, or taste? Is it measurable?

What did you see? (observation); What might that mean? (inference).

To try and ensure their explanations are robust, i.e. that their inferences are valid, scientists do a number of different things, for example:

They ask questions like: “Could there be another explanation for this data?”

They might collect more data, perhaps using a different method. They might also test alternative explanations.

They communicate and debate their ideas with other scientists.

Another example of this could be looking at bird features –their beaks and feet… What do children notice about the different beaks of birds? Could they go out and take some photos (or sketch some of the beaks they can see?). It might be that you use photos on the projector of different birds for children to sketch.

Next children might write down some thinking –why might a duck’s foot be webbed? Why would that be helpful? Children might think about scuba divers with their flippers and how well they can swim so perhaps the webbed feet help the duck swim better (and some children might have even seen ducks swimming). These are inferences because we’re simply making sense of our observations without the need for ‘proof’. Children, as they get older, might like to put a ‘because’ in their sentence too: I think the webbed foot is so the duck can swim better because scuba divers wear them to help them swim stronger and faster. These inferences are the beginning of an explanation although we’ll need data to prove what we’re thinking… The inferences might be wrong and so students might challenge their thinking: I think the kiwi beak is long so he can eat berries that are high up because he’s so small. I’ve seen lots of birds eating the berries in our tree and he wouldn’t be able to reach them. This is an inference based on what the child has seen as well as thinking about the beak. Other children might challenge this inference –do kiwi eat berries like other birds? I thought kiwi eat bugs –I saw it on YouTube! The student might then watch a video of a kiwi searching for food, or read some information about what kiwi might eat and then change their mind… Actually kiwi don’t eat berries on the trees. He uses his beak to push through all the dead leaves on the forest floor looking for bugs to eat. Because his beak is long he can push in a lot deeper. And you can see that this is becoming an explanation: after having seen some footage of kiwi or reading up on the bird, the child now has evidence to back up their explanation! It’s no longer simply an inference of what might be what’s going on based on their own thinking but they have evidence!

Bird feature	What we think they might use the feature for	What we saw on the video
http://etc.usf.edu/	I think the feet are for  swimming like a scuba diver	Yes the duck used its webbed feet to go faster –he spread out his feet underwater like flippers
www.aucklandmuseum.com	I think the beak is long and pointy so it can pick berries that are too high up to reach	The beak is actually so he can search for grubs and worms in the leaf litter

Sometimes though there might be more than one explanation… I like the panda bear skull because you can look at the skull and infer it’s a carnivorous animal. You might even decide it could be a grizzly bear with those sharp teeth… So my inference is I think it’s a carnivorous animal because it has those sharp teeth in the front. To explain, I may look at some other carnivorous animals, compare their skulls and decide Yes, from the evidence of other skulls, I think this is a meat-eating animal. It has similar teeth at the front and back. From looking at the two skulls, they seem almost identical so I’m thinking this is a bear skull too. Although my explanation is built on all the evidence, in this case, it’s a panda skull which eats bamboo… I might want to do a bit more research, questioning so why does it have teeth like that? Did it used to eat meat?

Panda skull http://www.educationalbiofacts.com

Grizzly Bear skull

Another good example is on the TKI site. It’s a lesson based around a Building Science Concept resource about changes (http://scienceonline.tki.org.nz/Science-capabilities-for-citizenship/Introducing-five-science-capabilities/Gather-interpret-data/The-Land-Changes). The lesson is about children noticing changes and then thinking about how it has changed and what the effect could be.

What has changed?	How has it changed?	What do we think caused the change?	What is the effect of the change?
The tree	It has grown.	Time and conditions that allow growth	There is a shady place in the playground.

Noticing changes is definitely an observation, how it has changed could be an observation or an inference whilst the third column is an inference with students thinking about their observations whilst the last column could be an observation or an inference. As children infer, it might lead onto further questions and investigations.

It can be really effective to think a bit more about why we are teaching this capability? Why do we want to develop this ‘citizenship idea’? Although it looks like the capability of Gather and Interpret Data is all about processes and skills, it’s really part of a disposition (like the Key Competencies). As these children get older, how would this capability help them? Would it be good for them to learn how to observe closely, about what an inference is, and what makes a good explanation? Would you use these capabilities as a ‘grown up’?

Hope this helps!