To cap off this series, I’d like to talk about the way we generally learn about (and then teach) science. Maybe you’ll find that my experiences are similar to yours.

The Pitfalls of Science “Experiments”

I loved my high school physics class, but looking back, we didn’t do physics in a very scientific way. I remember learning about “g” – the acceleration of any object due to gravity, which is 9.8 m/s² – and then doing an experiment in which we dropped objects from various heights and used stop watches to see how long it took them to hit the ground.

My lab partners and I quietly fudged the data so that our results would match those found from the mathematical equations we had already learned. In fact, I admit that we frequently fudged data from our experiments to fit the framework of scientific fact that we had already studied. I now call this “verification science.”

We weren’t scientists; we weren’t even posing as scientists. We spent our days trying to verify something we had already learned, rather than experimenting, observing, and contemplating to try to reach the truth – the way real scientists do.

It might be tempting for you to approach experiments, demonstrations, and activities the same way: explain a concept, define some terms, and then do the activity to try to illustrate or recreate what you have already explained This is not real science!

For example, you might teach your students that seeds need water, soil, and sunlight to grow. Then you might plant seeds in two different pots, placing one in a closet and the other on a window sill, watering them every day and observing their progress.

Is the child discovering anything? Will she come to her own conclusion as a new thought? Or will she simply be verifying that what you told her is true?

What Is the Purpose of Science Experiments?

Whenever possible, use experiments and activities to help them reach conclusions and concepts about the natural world, rather than using them to verify what you have already told them.

In the case of the example I mentioned (growing plants), the entire activity would be different if you didn’t tell the children what plants need to grow ahead of time. Instead, have them put seeds in cups and do different things with them (put one in a dark place, and one in sunlight) and let them observe what happens.

Some might already have heard that plants need sunlight; tell them that they can learn whether or not that’s true through this experiment. Don’t affirm their statements one way or they other; let the experiment do the affirming.

Yes, you will need to lead them; give them the background information that they need; ask them specific questions to guide their thought process. And then help them reach conclusions and concepts as discoveries that they have made – just as the scientists who came before them.

This article shows you how to lead a child through the scientific method and gives great tips on helping children to become great observers and scientists: Let’s Investigate! Spark Interest in Science with these Seven Steps to Successful Studies.

Questioning Rather Than Telling

In traditional forms of instruction, the teacher is often perceived as a fount of knowledge who pours her information into the empty vessels called students. These students are not active inquirers engaged in learning, but rather are passive recipients of the information.

In this paradigm, students will find it almost impossible to wrestle with and resolve the contradictions that exist because of their misconceptions about the physical world.

In Montessori, teachers are thought of as “guides”; they try to lead students to knowledge rather than handing it to them. But in the area of science, it’s easy to fall back on the old model.

One way to help students become actively involved in the construction of knowledge going on in their minds is to ask them questions that will lead them to specific conclusions – questions which bring the students to the place where they can grasp the concept for themselves.

Using the Socratic Method

Teachers can also encourage the students to be inquirers – questioners – as well. The process of asking and answering questions to stimulate rational thinking and to illuminate ideas is called the Socratic Method, named after the Greek philosopher Socrates who engaged in such discussions about moral and philosophical issues.

The questions you ask your students can range from simply seeking information to explaining “why,” asking them to clarify or even asking them to extend beyond this specific situation to a general principle. Here is a limited list of questions to get you started¹:

What is it?
What happened?
What does that mean?
Why does it work that way?
Which is the most important?
Which came first?
How do you know that?
What would happen if…?

Give the students time to think through your questions. Don’t give up if they cannot give adequate answers right away. Perhaps you need to ask in a different way or back up a step and make sure they understand what is going on.

Such questions should lead a student to confront and work out the contradictions that exist because of his misconceptions.

To illustrate this, consider the persistent misconception mentioned in the post Shattering Science Myths. It’s the misconception that we experience seasons because of the Earth’s changing distance from the Sun (closer in the summer, farther in the winter).

Rather than telling the students that the Earth’s changing distance from the Sun produces negligible changes in temperature and that of course it is the tilt of the Earth on its axis which causes seasons, you could find a contradiction that exists in the misconception and lead them to confront it.

The answers may vary, but here’s a possible list of questions:

“Why do we experience seasons?”
“How does this work?”
“When it is summer in South America, what season do we experience in North America?” (If they don’t know, have them look it up and find out!)
“If we experience summer because the Earth is closer to the Sun sometimes, would it be possible to have two different seasons occurring at the same time on Earth?”
“Why not?”
“Let’s take a step back and look at the way the rays of the Sun strike the Earth. Why is the equator hotter than the North and South poles?”

Then you can go back through the Geography Impressionistic Charts and review the effects of vertical and oblique rays from the Sun. Lead them to the idea that the tilt of the Earth on its axis causes different areas of the Earth to have more vertical or more oblique rays during certain times of year.

This example can be applied to many different science concepts. Once you get used to the Socratic Method, it will become second nature to lead children to their own answer through questions rather than giving them the answers yourself.

When students reach conclusions by thinking through well-crafted questions, rather than by simply being told something, they have been given the chance to dissolve their misconceptions forever.

Conclusion

Children have already formed their own ideas of how the world works. Sometimes these ideas are correct, but often they are not. The result is that fundamental gaps are formed in their thinking which hinder scientific concepts and lines of reasoning.

Most students can close those gaps. Through repeated exercises, experiments, and challenging questions, students will begin to not just repeat back ideas; they will begin to believe them.

Reference:

1. Questions taken from Engaging Students (PDF)

So, you’ve managed to face up to your misconceptions of science. You’ve acknowledged that you need accurate information in order to teach kids correctly.

Good for you!

Now the question is, how can we actually help kids learn about science in a way that doesn’t lead to their own wrong conclusions?

How can we lead them to challenge their misconceptions and move towards an accurate view of the natural world?

I’m so glad you asked! Two of our best tools are language and experiments.

The Language of Science

“The terms are so familiar and frequently invoked that the student has lost all sense of the fact that he or she does not really know what they mean.” – Arnold B. Arons

When studying science, we take the same words that we use in daily life and give them a greatly modified and specific scientific meaning. This new meaning is only vaguely connected to their normal usage. Examples of such words would include force, weight, mass, acceleration, and energy.

Unfortunately, teachers sometimes assume that the students already know the scientific meaning of the term because they know its everyday meaning!

The truth is, the students do not know about the shift in meaning unless we point it out explicitly many times. We must remind them that the words remain the same, but they have taken on a new scientific meaning.

PS Montessori left a comment on a recent post which illustrates this perfectly. He wrote, “I had an experience with third graders who were very confused by the definition of energy. I came to the conclusion that no one had used the term ‘energy’ around them to refer to anything besides the movement of children, i.e., ‘You kids have a lot of energy!’”

This kind of misunderstanding is quite common, and can be difficult to overcome.

I suggest this approach: rather than introducing a new concept with the word or term first, lead students to the idea first – either through experimentation (if possible), explanation, and/or dialogue – and then give it a name.

This follows a wise saying, “Idea first and name afterwards.” The idea is more significant than the name.

Making Sure They Understand

When you do introduce a term, make sure you state the definition clearly and in words the children can understand. Ask them to tell you what it means in their own words. Write it down on a dry erase board or paper so they can see the definition.

Make sure they understand the meaning of the words used in the definition. Ask them to tell you the meaning of the term after some time has elapsed (like later that day, or a week or two later). Keep reviewing terms and definitions so that they take hold.

Choose Experiments Wisely

Sometimes we are tempted to do the most dramatic experiments and demonstrations in the name of fun or getting kids interested in science. But even if we give a truthful explanation for the idea we are illustrating, the students may abandon our words for the sake of their own form of logic if their minds are not ready for it.

Let me use a common gravity experiment as an example.

If you are talking about gravity, you might drop a rock and a feather at the same time to observe the fascinating difference in the way they fall to the ground. Because the feather takes longer to reach the ground, the casual observer (the students and maybe some adults too) might conclude that lighter or smaller objects fall at a slower rate than heavy ones.

It doesn’t matter if you carefully explain that the reason the feather takes longer to reach the ground is because of air resistance. The image of the rock hitting the ground almost instantly while the feather wistfully takes its time will engrave itself in the child’s mind.

[Note - in the original Geography Charts & Experiments, the feather experiment was the first gravity experiment done. And, centripital force was presented before gravity, when really it is much more easily understood after gravity has been discussed - Lori]

Because the air around us doesn’t alter the outcomes of most of our daily experiences, “air resistance” is a complex concept whose explanation is far less powerful than the image of the rock and the feather.

Slow and Steady Wins the Science Race

The best way to approach air resistance is not to approach it at all – that is, not until the fundamental principles of gravity are already ingrained in the students’ minds, and until they are ready to understand the sophisticated concept of air resistance.

Start with experiments that teach the gravity in the simplest way before showing them the more complicated situation. Drop different objects together that are not as affected by air resistance – such as coins, balls, pens, rocks, books, toys – so that they will form the correct conclusion that all objects, regardless of weight and size, fall at the same rate.

Once that concept is well established and you are prepared to study air resistance, then you can bring out the confusing example of the feather and the rock.

At that time, you must thoroughly explore the concept of air resistance – and perhaps do other experiments about air and air resistance. Explain the concept of a vacuum (the absence of air) and tell them that in a vacuum, all objects do fall at the same rate.

Show them a video of an Apollo 15 astronaut dropping a hammer and a feather on the Moon, where there is no air resistance! This kind of visual demonstration will go a long way to insuring that they understand gravity and air resistance correctly.

We can apply the same principles to every science concept and experiment we do:

• Put the idea ahead of the word
• Use words correctly
• Define words clearly
• Choose appropriate science experiments
• Introduce concepts in the correct order
• Wait until one concept is thoroughly understood before moving on to the next one

With this approach, we can ensure that children get the most out of science!

Note from Lori: Lisa’s post was pretty long, so I have broken it into two parts. I’ll post part two next week. The information was so good, I didn’t want to take anything out!

I alluded to two ways of analyzing the universe:

Aristolean: In this viewpoint, science is qualitative (based on the observer’s impression), not quantitative (based on gathering data). Conclusions are arrived at based on personal observation, and mathematics is not used to validate deductions. Assumptions are made that are not tested.

Newtonian: In this viewpoint, science is quantitative (based on gathering data), not qualitative (based on the observer’s impression). Conclusions are verified by using the scientific method: data is collected through observation and experimentation, and is subject to rigorous testing and the scientific principles of reasoning.

Without scientific training, most of us take the Aristolean approach: we base conclusions about our lives on what we see from our perspective, and we do not subject our conclusions to rigorous scientific testing.

We are the products of the fuzzy science education we received. Our textbooks contained errors, and our own teachers often did not completely understand the concepts they explained to us, so it’s easy for the cycle of misinformation to continue. In order to teach science correctly, we must be willing to drop some of our long-held beliefs about the interworkings of the universe.

How Can We Be Sure We Teach Science Correctly?

1. Make Sure Our Source Material is Accurate

My sister and I discovered that it’s surprisingly hard to find textbooks that are completely accurate. In Montessori, we have a bit of an aversion to textbooks anyway and prefer to use teacher-made materials, but those can have errors as well. If you are teaching physics to children (at home or at school), I recommend these resources:

For Adults:

1. Mountain Motion: The Free Physics Textbook – This amazing textbook covering every aspect of physics can be downloaded for free. At over 1600 pages, it’s a long read, but you can certainly use it on a section-by-section basis. It is geared towards modern physics, not classical, but it definitely a good resource.

2. The Physics Classroom Tutorial – For a firm foundation in classical physics, we’ve found that this website contains accurate information explained clearly, and includes activities and diagrams that are very helpful.

3. Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics by Its Most Brilliant Teacher – This landmark book by physicist Richard Feynman is a great way for you to educate (or re-educate) yourself on basic physics principles. It’s not meant for children, but it can be a resource that you turn to while teaching them. It’s intended for the general reader, so it’s light on mathematics and easy to understand.

For Children:

Physical Science materials from Montessori for Everyone – my sister and I have worked very hard on these, and you can be sure of their accuracy. We plan on making more as time allows!

2. Verify the Information

When it comes to science, the Internet is full of misinformation. Well-meaning people post experiments and illustrations that at the most are outright inaccurate, or at the very least, poorly explained and misleading.

If you are using the Internet to find the answer to a science question, or to find a fun experiment, be sure to consult more than one source. Wikipedia can be a good starting point, but should never be the sole source of information.

3. Make Sure We Understand What We’re Teaching

For some lessons, we can sit down with the material and present it with little or no preparation beforehand. Science should not fall in this category. We should read (multiple times, if necessary) the information and make sure we know the meanings of all the words used.

The author of the Mountain Motion textbook linked to above recommends reading information aloud, and stating it in your own words for complete comprehension. It’s also advisable to perform science experiments ahead of time, before doing them with students, to make sure that you understand how the experiment is to be done and what the desired result is.

4. Don’t Be Afraid to Challenge Your Own Preconceptions

In teaching science correctly to children, you may find yourself letting go of things that you have always believed to be true. Especially when it comes to Newton’s Laws, you will have to work through each one to make sure that you truly understand it.

I went through this process while working on the Forces Set 1 – Classical Physics material with my sister. She wrote the initial text, and then sent it to me for editing and formatting. As I read what she had written, I had to admit that I truly didn’t understand why no force is needed to keep an object in motion once it had been set in motion. I think I called her and said, “But what keeps it going?!?”

She laughed and told me that Aristotle was still in my head – in other words, I was viewing Newton’s Laws from my own limited perspective. Since friction and other forces keep objects from moving forever in our everyday world, I wasn’t able to correctly imagine what would happen to an object when removed from all outside forces.

That night I decided to tell my husband what I had learned about Newton’s Three Laws of Motion. As I explained each one, I felt a light bulb go off in my head. An object stays in motion without the application of a continuous force because a force would be needed to stop it!

Maybe this sounds obvious, but it was a breakthrough to me. I was able to “kick Aristotle out of my head”, and understand inertia like never before. As I continued working on the Forces material, there were several other ideas that had to crumble, including my understanding of centrifugal force, balanced and unbalanced forces, and circular motion.

My sister helped me to understand that when studying Newton’s Three Laws of Motion, everyone must reach a crisis point in order to understand them. They seem to contradict our own observations and experiences. In fact, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that if you haven’t wrestled with Newton’s Laws, you don’t yet understand them.

The Importance of Clear, Correct Information

In scientific study, one principle builds on the next one. So, if a child is given erroneous information (or draws the wrong conclusion based on incomplete information), they will have a difficult time understanding whatever concept comes next. From childhood up through adulthood, fundamental gaps are formed in their thinking which hinder scientific concepts and lines of reasoning.

A student who ventures into science as a major in college, or pursues a profession in the sciences, will have a huge head start over other students if they have been taught scientific principles correctly. They won’t have to undergo a “reboot” to wipe out the incorrect ideas like other students will.

Giving a child correct information ensures the development of their own critical thinking skills. They quickly realize that they cannot trust their own assumptions when it comes to scientific discovery; they must rely on the scientific method to arrive at explanations for natural phenomena.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I hope you haven’t been frightened away from teaching science, but it’s good to have a healthy respect for scientific accuracy when you approach science lessons. Let’s jump in with both feet and be students as well as teachers!

Please come back at the end of June for the last part of this science series – where my sister takes on the pitfalls of science experiments. Next week we’ll be talking about fathers and education in celebration of Father’s Day.

As we worked on this project, we were both struck with how many misconceptions exist about science; children and adults alike seem to struggle with understanding the physical world. We decided to collaborate on a series of blog posts about this topic, beginning with this one.

Humans are always looking for explanations. From infancy onward, we are drawing conclusions about the things we see around us. The trouble is, our conclusions about how the world works are often wrong.

A baby lying in a crib may kick her legs and see the curtains flutter in the breeze. The baby makes a connection between the two, and assumes that the curtains fluttered because she kicked her legs. If the baby kicks again and the curtain doesn’t move, the baby may become frustrated because reality isn’t matching the pattern she thought it would—but the baby concludes that the curtains aren’t working correctly, not that she herself has made an error.

A child may notice that the Sun sinks below the horizon when it sets, and conclude that it disappears for the night. Based on their observation, this seems like a logical explanation. If you didn’t already know why the Sun sinks below the horizon, would you ever leap straight to the understanding that the Earth is a sphere, and that a light can only shine on one side of a sphere at a time?

The Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that the natural tendency of all objects is to come to a rest position. When an object was at rest, it was in a “natural state.” Aristotle taught that a constant force was required to keep an object moving with constant speed or it would naturally stop moving.

This is not true.

However, it was taught for centuries before Isaac Newton came along and showed that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force (Newton’s First Law of Motion). Why had Aristotle been so wrong? He relied on his own observations and assumptions rather than logic and empirical evidence. Sadly, many of us still do that today.

Why Do We Have So Many Misconceptions About Science?

1. Casual observation of the natural world can lead to wrong conclusions.

Common misconceptions are rooted in everyday experiences. Simply observing the motion of objects around us is not enough to lead us to correct conclusions. Too often, we go by what “seems” to be happening rather than figuring out what is actually happening.

Humans are hard-wired to seek explanations for the things they see around them, but often, we sacrifice logic in order to arrive at an explanation. One common logical fallacy is “After it, therefore because of it”. We often assume that if B comes after A, then A caused B to happen. The baby kicks her legs and the curtain flutters; the baby assumes that one caused the other.

Aristotle noticed that when he stopped pushing a book on a table (A), the book stopped moving (B). He assumed that it stopped moving because he stopped pushing, when really it was the force of friction that caused the book to stop moving. It requires a deeper look at physical phenomena in order to truly understand them.

The reasons why the planets and stars behave like they do are complicated; that’s why it took humans so long to figure them out. Each person will have to work through the original obstacles that Galileo and Newton did in order to reform their thinking. As one physics teacher says, “Aristotle lives in your head and it’s my job to kick him out!”

2. Experiments aren’t explained, or are explained incorrectly by teachers who do not truly understand it themselves.

Parents and teachers sometimes sacrifice correct information on the altar of fun and excitement. They may help kids perform a science experiment but not explain the concept that is being demonstrated. Or, they may give an explanation that is misleading or incorrect.

A perfect example of this is the idea of centrifugal force. How many of us remember a teacher taking the class outside and swinging a bucket full of water in a circle? I do. We were told that there were two forces acting on the bucket: centripetal force, which was pulling it in, and centrifugal force, which was pushing it outward.

This is not true.

Centripetal force does exist in the bucket experiment. It is the force needed to keep an object moving in a circular motion, and is provided by the tension in the string. But nothing is pulling the bucket outward. When you let go of the string, the bucket flies away because of an object’s tendency to move in a straight line unless another force is acting on it. With the centripetal force (the string) removed, the bucket flies away in a straight line.

3. Concepts are portrayed incorrectly in drawings or pictures.

If you show children a picture of the Earth (in order to explain its rotation) and you make the Sun smaller than the Earth just to save room on the page, they may come away thinking that the Sun is smaller than the Earth even if you tell them some other time that the Earth is much smaller than the Sun. The mental picture they have formed of the Earth and the Sun cannot be swept away by words and explanations.

What Are Some Common Science Myths?

Take a look at this website, Children’s Misconceptions About Science, and you might be surprised at how many of these are things you’ve heard or believed; here are a few:

• Stars and constellations appear in the same place in the sky every night.
• We experience seasons because of the earth’s changing distance from the sun (closer in the summer, farther in the winter).
• The moon does not rotate on its axis as it revolves around the earth.
• An object at rest has no energy.
• If an object is at rest, no forces are acting on the object.
• Objects float in water because they are lighter than water.
• Objects sink in water because they are heavier than water.
• Air and oxygen are the same gas.
• Gravity increases with height.

Sound familiar? You may have been told some of these things when you were in school or erroneously drawn your own conclusions based on poorly explained experiments or diagrams.

Where Does That Leave Us?

Sadly, this is one of Montessori’s biggest failings. Because of our desire to be true to the “Montessori method” and to use Maria Montessori’s original materials, we have often used materials that are out of date or scientifically incorrect. I am aiming to rectify this, but it is a big task and outdated materials still exist in many classrooms.

Here are some recent corrections:

1. The Parts of a Fruit – for decades, Montessori materials have used an apple as an illustration of the Parts of a Fruit. A botany expert emailed me a few months ago and mentioned that an apple is an accessory of the fruit and actually doesn’t contain the three parts of the fruit as traditionally taught.

I have re-done the Parts of a Fruit with a peach, which is a correct illustration of the parts of a fruit. If you have purchased the Fruit from me at any time (as a PDF, printed, or on a CD), please email me to get a free PDF of the new Parts of a Fruit.

2. Geography Charts and Experiments – this material was well-intentioned, but sadly embodies every scientific misstep we’ve mentioned so far. Concepts were poorly explained, incorrectly explained, or not explained at all. My work on this material turned into a total and complete revision; if you are still using the old Geography Charts in your classroom, it is imperative that they be replaced with updated materials.

Our Challenge

I think we have a huge challenge before us, but one that is exciting rather than scary. We have the chance to help children become critical thinkers when it comes to analyzing the “whys” and “hows” of the world around us.

We can help them look beyond casual observations and illogical thinking, and instead lead them to a deeper (and correct) understanding of scientific principles. In helping children form correct ideas, we have a chance to dispel some of the science myths that we ourselves have held for so long.

Stay tuned for the rest of this series; Part 2 will deal with the challenge of teaching science correctly, and Part 3 will be a guest post by my sister Lisa on the potential pitfalls of science experiments.