Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

Some responses to Michael's comments;

> I said, "How would one go about measuring the speed of
> light?" and Joel
> Rauber said, "I would reword this as, What is the speed of
> light?  then
> proceed to measure it.  The question as stated can be solved
> by doing a
> book report."
>
> But the question "what is the speed of light" doesn't even require a
> book report.  It's a number we already know.

Granted, that is why I added the necessary proceed to measure it.

> At this point allow me to me make a distinction between a project like
> "how would one go about measuring the speed of light (and
> proceeding to
> do it)" versus a project like "which spot remover works best
> to get out
> a spaghetti-sauce stain."

> <snipped lots of good stuff on speed of light project>

> The typical stain-remover project is essentially process only... about
> zero science content.  The reason is because it is framed that way by
> the teachers.  Can the student form a hypothesis (xyz will work better
> than abc), then can the student devise an experimental method with
> sufficient controls and reproducibility to answer this question.  Any
> thought as to why xyz might be better than abc for this type of stain
> is not mentioned.

My feeling is that for the typical junior high project (the one's I've
actually had experience judging) a little knowledge gained about process is
wonderful; the whole idea of controls, reproducibility and eventing an
experimental method that answers a question in some coherent fashion; even
if the question is as "dumb" as which spot remover works best requires the
student to define in a way that is measurable "spot removing" and how it can
be viewed as working "best"; and then presumably to then *do it*.
> This seems to be the primary focus of science fairs today... process.

This doesn't bother me, particularly at the junior high level; when we get
to the senior high level there is more that can be discussed here (we'd
probably be closer in agreement; which I don't think we are far from anyway,
but perhaps not)

>  That's why we have this hypothesis/experiment/conclusion
> stuff

I hope it hasn't escaped peoples attencion that I haven't stressed a set
"hypothesis/experiment/conclusion" format, but rather have stressed more
experimental design and data taking to answer a question.

> because
> it is the primary thing the teachers think they need to stress.   In
> fact, they stress it more than "experimental design" i.e. learning
> about controls and reproducibility.  Although the hypothesis stuff
> clearly outranks the experimental design phase (here at Bluffton) I am
> at least happy to report that the design aspect is not totally
> neglected.  In my opinion that is the most educational part of a
> project like removing stains... not that I tested a hypothesis, but
> that I designed an experiment that was able to produce an obvious,
> reproducible, definitive answer.  But that is only one aspect of
> science.  I also want to know why.

I would say that the major purpose (not the only purpose) of science fair
projects is to give young students experience ragarding that aspect of
science.  This is of course an opinion based on my personal experience with
science fairs.

> I think there is little science content in a stain remover project
> UNLESS the student tries to find out why xyz is better than abc.

Agreed, which is why I make the comment above.  After all, this is quite
likely a 12-14 year old, in principle doing the project on their own (in
practice this by far not the case) and I wouldn't expect them to be doing a
project with lots of science content; but something that has something of
the flavor of the experimental science (engineering) process.


> BTW, the reason I made the comment about Joel Rauber's "last
> paragraph"
> was because in one of his postings he mentioned that building an
> electronic device might be allowed as an alternative to a science fair
> "science project."  That sounds a whole lot to me as if he is saying
> that building an electronic device is not a real science project.

Do not construe my comments as meaning that building an electronic device is
not real science.  I'm only suggesting that it might not be appropriate as a
science fair project at the junior high (possibly senior high) level.  There
is a wide gulf of difference and meaning in the two comments.

>  Although my diploma says Ph.D. in chemical physics, and although my
> specialty within that is nuclear physics/chemistry... my REAL
> specialty
> is that I design and build instruments.  I spent a few
> hundred thousand
> of your tax dollars building various nuclear detection
> devices.  I sure
> had the notion that I was doing science projects.

I would say you were doing science, period.  My comments are directed
towards this activity that young students perform, not always by choice,
called science fair projects.  I have never meant to imply that my statement
of what is appropriate for these projects is isomorphic to the activities of
professional scientist, whose activities encompass so so much more.

I have nothing but awe regarding the contributions to the scientific
endeavor coming from instrument makers; whose activities are essential.  I
sometimes think that nothing has surpassed in ingenuity or usefullness,
(scientifically, if I may use that phrase) then the ruling engines for
making diffraction gratings that existed in the 30 odd year block at the
beginning of the century.

Finally, I'd simply ask what criteria you think should be used to decide
what is allowable in a science fair project or not?

We actually are in closer agreement than you may think.  I think your
daughter should be allowed to build the electronic amplifier, *without*
having to put the activity into some sort of "hypothesis" rubric. And this
should be allowed as an alternative (and probably superior) activity to
entering a project in the local science fair.

Joel Rauber