STAT - Tasmanian Science Talent Search - 2006 Judges Comments

Einstein once said: “Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration”. How true!

In their final discussion, many students expressed this feeling:. “We could have improved this experiment in some ways, provided we had more time. Also having now completed the experiment we have a greater understanding and insight into the topic and thus can see further improvements to the former experiment”.

And the teachers say, ” What a pity we didn’t start earlier!”

Over 200 research entries were received this year, and in general the overall standard was very pleasing.

Particularly pleasing was the emphasis on scientific report layout: abstract, introduction, hypothesis, method, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgements, references. Usually all variables in the experiment were listed, with a good effort given to how they tried to control as many as possible.

Some common shortcomings are worth noting though, especially those which can be more easily rectified.

1. Time spent planning, researching background information, and doing a rough run at the experiment, is all time well spent. This will highlight previously unconsidered variables and problems, so that the actual experiment, when executed, brings more valid results . In the classroom this can be done by allocating say one period a week or fortnight from early in the year, to give sufficient “thinking time”. By the time then that you start to devote fulltime in the classroom to the project, worthwhile use of time is more certain. Some students included daily journal entries which showed that, for the considerable class time allotted, maybe only 1 or 2 lessons were actually spent on the experimental investigation. Only THEN did they find out “what I could/ should have done” by which time it is too late to re-do the investigation, with hindsight! Both the quality and quantity of experimental work are assessed. Repetition of scientific work is essential if the results are to be meaningful. It is better to be slightly simpler, but well-controlled and specific, so results are meaningful.

2. Presentation of the report, suitable for public appraisal, is very important. You could offer to laminate their front cover, spiral bind their work, or include it in a display folder. A colour photo on the front cover of the student doing an interesting part of the experiment is always impressive, and shows the student that YOU value their work, and they should feel proud of it too. A contents page makes reading far easier. Typed projects are far more professional-looking, and spell check can pick up many errors, but it must still be proofread by someone else! For younger students, it is worthwhile to build up a list of key words around the classroom. Scientists who cannot effectively communicate their findings to others might be considered to have wasted their time. A “longer” report is not necessarily better. If it is a group report, subdivide the report writing, so there is no repetition, but try to keep font , type size etc similar. Extra information, not directly related, can be listed as an Appendix at the end.

3. Background information; This can be very interesting and can help students understand the background science, but should be limited to information directly relevant to the investigation. Some students put far too much time and effort into this, and leave insufficient time for their experiment.

4. Method: Get your students to ask someone else to re-read the method instructions. THEY know what they’ve done, but others should not be left in any doubt. Point form instructions are good. Past tense impersonal is expected at higher secondary levels.

Good, labelled diagrams or photographs (labelled) are essential.

5. Results: Always encourage students to obtain quantitative results. NOT: “it grew better”, but a table of results recording how much better. Consider as many dimensions of “better” as you can e.g. “better” plant growth might mean, higher, more leaves, weighs more, more flowers…Students are more readily using digital photography to record results, but these must be labelled, and indicate scale as well.

6. Repetition of experiments or readings is essential. Three or four readings for any measurement is good practice. Any “way-out” readings should be explained if possible but not included in averaging. It is pleasing to see some senior students starting to calculate % errors, and some doing P tests to show significance of results suggesting a causal relationship rather than chance variation, and standard deviations from the mean.

7. The number of individuals investigated in the experiment is also important. Inferences made from comparing one plant under one set of experimental conditions with one plant under different conditions, cannot be relied because of natural variation between individuals. Choose an experimental subject which you can obtain in large numbers.

8. Graphs are useful to visually highlight results. If comparing results, they should be either graphed on the same set of axes, or as two graphs on axes with the same scale. “Growth” on a graph with very small scale can look out of proportion. If using pie graphs and calculating %’s, try to have say 10 or 20 sets of results. How can 11% of people prefer chocolate, if there’s only 9 in the group.? Are you saying that in your set of 9, 1.1 persons preferred chocolate? Needless to say, axes must be labelled, and the scale regular. A starting value, or control group is essential for comparing results. Appropriateness of bar graph as opposed to a line graph is important.

9. Discussion: About 25% of the assessment is given to the way the students attempt to explain what their results mean, tieing their experimental results to the background information to consider whether their hypothesis is supported. Why? How? What? Careful thinking about odd results often throw up unaccounted variables. One student, testing the effect of caffeine on heart rate, noted that in the teenage girls of the sample, the effect of the same dose of caffeine was more extreme. They then realised that this group had significantly less body weight, therefore the dose per body weight kg was higher. With time, they could easily have re-done the experiment with a specific dose/per kg body weight amount rather than simply the same dose for all. More specific…fewer variables…more meaningful results…better science! Discuss the results with mentors, other students or staff, other specialists in the field. Seeking assistance is to be encouraged. Real scientists confer with their colleagues. But all assistance MUST be acknowledged.

I really enjoyed reading all these projects. It is exciting to think that many of our students have the opportunity to investigate a topic in depth, chosen by themselves, steered by their own direction, and paced by their own passion and drive.

Science is a way of learning , thinking, and knowing.

We are science teachers. To allow students to experience real science is demanding, but very rewarding.

Margaret Hosford Director TSTS 2006.