The Nature of Science, the capabilities and the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything

With apologies to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I've been pondering the deeper meaning of the Nature of Science. I've been helped with a few readings around the capabilities and lifelong learning and just thinking, as always, How do I ensure children are understanding about science when I'm teaching it? My worry is that the science I teach will look just like Social Studies or Art or P.E... Each of these Learning Areas should have variations to the questions, answers, discussions and our role (both as student and teacher). We may observe in Art and Science but should they be the same?

In Art, I may be thinking about the warmth of colours, the intent behind the art, and other possibly more subjective ideas than I might in science. There could be some 'science' observations... I see three oranges and an  apple but we're hoping for interpretation, expression and other arty things! Strangely enough, when I googled that phrase, I found a band actually called that!

Anyway, before I squirrel off, how do we ensure that these 'lenses' are understood by the children? I've had the odd student go 'wow' or 'yuck' during a lesson and I've always said that we can respond with these thoughts, but are they a scientific observation? Do we all agree with your noticings? I would rather not eat pumpkin as I think it's yuck, however you may love it! We can both agree when describing the size, shape, colour, or how our senses notice the pumpkin -and that's a more scientific observation! The TKI site (http://scienceonline.tki.org.nz/Science-capabilities-for-citizenship/Introducing-five-science-capabilities) says about observations, or gathering data: "Science knowledge is based on data derived from direct, or indirect, observations of the natural physical world and often includes measuring something."
During workshops, we sometimes talk about students bringing to school a cultural lens or a religious lens... They might be using more than one lens at a time. Our aim is that, when we're talking about science, children recognise there's a style of language or behaviour or method. We're not saying this lens is more important but just different!

So rewinding back to my intial pondering, how do we ensure that children are getting the deeper message of the science capabilities or the Nature of Science? I think it's all wrapped up in that first Nature of Science strand Understanding about Science...

New Zealand Curriculum "Understanding about Science" Aim

Perhaps if we have this kind of intent, our children may get a clearer picture of what we're trying to do in science education. I also can't help thinking that through this particular strand, the other three Nature of Science strands sort of fall into line: "Because I know that scientists are very careful with their investigations, I'll make sure I record the data accurately...(Investigating in Science)" or "I know scientists communicate their findings with one another, I better make sure I have the right name for that seashell...(Communicating in Science)"
So how do we do this? There are places where science is happening, who are very happy to share their scientists, their findings, and some even like tours. The Science Learning Hub  are changing a little the way they do things and part of this involves them being available to help classrooms connect with scientists. They also have videos on their website as well: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/ for students to watch. These scientists may not know the Nature of Science from our curriculum per se, but we can reflect back with our classes What did you see? How do we know that she was a scientist? How did she do things that showed us how we could / should be working in science? One important thing is student knowledge -and how do we grow and develop student knowledge through their own efforts (I sort of think this question could be bigger than the the Ultimate Question at the beginning of the blog!)? I love the sentence on p. 28 of the NZC that shows us: (Science) involves generating and testing ideas, gathering evidence -including by making observations, carrying out investigations and modelling, and communicating and debating with others -in order to develop scientific knowledge, understanding and explanations. This doesn't just mean "knowledge" as in the Latin name for a kauri snail being Paryphanta Busbyi but also knowing about science, about being responsible, about critiquing, about investigating and questioning, etc... Incidentally whilst I was looking up the Latin name, I came across this wikipedia page which I think is perfect for students to critique -is this really a 'scientific' piece of writing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paryphanta. A fascinating explanation!
So, with the Nature of Science being the 'overarching strand' and the only compulsory one, how do we ensure we're not just gathering data or describing an orange which we might do in any other area, but we're doing science!
Oh, and just a funny cartoon to finish with. I love Gary Larson's work and came across it when I was looking for an art cartoon for this post. Doesn't really fit the blog but I like it! (So does that make it a scientific observation then?!?)

Keep sciencing on!
Paul

Kia Ora
Yesterday, caught this article in the New Zealand Herald from their Sideswipe section (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11814582) and I thought 'what a great way to show what critiquing is all about'! I might be a bit squeamish and wouldn't show the second photo as it has more than just spoons in it (!).

However it could be interesting to show the initial photo and perhaps an introduction with the claim that KFC is getting smaller... What questions to the children have? Are any of the questions ones that critique or challenge? And how do those questions look different? Who could we ask (without actually asking!) for further information -the article has a few ideas on this but there are no answers which is a shame!
Could we decide just from the photo? Could we look at a variety of teaspoons and other sized spoons to see what we think?
One aspect of this quick activity is the opportunity to communicate. The NZC for Science has a lot to say about communication (pages 28 and 29), both about scientists communicating with one another and the general public, as well as us communicating with one another. How do we discuss? How do we argue? Can I just say "You're a complete idiot! You can well see that this is a dessert spoon!" or do I need to think and communicate 'as a scientist'... and what does that look like? Can I be emotional? Do I need evidence? Do I need to be objective or subjective? How do scientists communicate (and I'm thinking how should they communicate rather than how they do communicate!)?
From my thinking there are a few things happening here -I would like the children to start challenging what they read, see or hear within a science context, and I would like to see children beginning to critique and knowing how to critique. If you read the last post, we are keen to see science citizenship happening in Aotearoa New Zealand, and for me, this includes thinking about how do we regular citizens interact with the world of science. Although this article is about KFC and chicken size, the tools and thinking will nicely come into play with any of our science activities... as well as being tools that we as adults can use.

And to finish for no reason at all... From the next day's Sideswipe, sharks... with human teeth! I wonder if this would change what they would eat, how they would catch food... My favourite one is bottom right!

Have a fantastic day!
Paul