The Curriculum associated with the SEAS Project is being developed. Our goal is to use the first year's experience to guide us through the curriculum development phase. In addition, we anticipate working with teachers around the state of Alabama to help us create the SEAS curriculum. If you would like to help, please contact us!

Some Topics Covered in our Curriuculm:

The Scientific Method

The scientific method is a process by which we systematically advance the understanding of our natural world.  Scientists adhere strictly to this method.  It is considered the foundation of all branches of science. In fact, a result can only be called 'scientific' if it has been subjected to the rigors of this scientific method. Both the power and the limitations of science are the result of the rigorous attention to this method. The scientific method can be divided into the following stages:

Observation; Hypothesis; Experimentation; Analysis; Conclusion and Theory.

All science must begin with observation. Science is only concerned with objects or events that are observable, either directly or indirectly.

An example of indirect observation is the study of atoms. Atoms are not readily observed but their effects are observed with instruments.

Objects or events may be observed in the natural world, or they may be products of planned experiments, both natural and experimental. Most importantly the observations need to be repeatable to some degree to put 'confidence' in your data.  This will be demonstrated more clearly under 'experimentation'.

Return to the top

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation to account for the observation. Formulating a hypothesis involves asking a question about the observation. The hypothesis brings the observations together into a generalization from which predictions can be made. Hypotheses must be testable.  More importantly, hypotheses must be falsifiable.

The step from isolated observations to generalization is often called induction, or inductive reasoning. The step from generalized question to prediction of outcome is often called deduction, or deductive reasoning.

For example, consider the following scenario. Someone walking along the beach notices a cockleshell that has a symmetrical hole through it. On its own this observation is perhaps interesting but not useful until it is incorporated into a generalization. Our observer uses inductive reasoning to ask the question; ‘do all cockleshells have holes through them?’ This question can then be formulated, with deductive reasoning, as a hypothesis that makes the prediction; ‘all cockleshells have holes in them’. So our observer has moved through the first two steps of the scientific method, making an observation and formulating a hypothesis.  

Suppose upon examining more shells the observer finds one without a hole. He has disproved (or falsified) his prediction that all cockleshells have holes in them and must therefore reject his hypothesis. The rejection of one hypothesis enables more illuminating questions to be posed and more specific hypotheses to be tested. Our observer may now ask the question, ‘why do some cockleshells have holes through them?’ or ‘what causes some cockle shells to have holes through them?’ This question may only be answered with further observations or experiments.

Scientific experiments are designed to test hypotheses to determine if the predictions made in the hypothesis are supported. Experimental designs are a function of the field of research, technological limitations and imagination of the scientist. Experiments can involve observations of objects and events in their natural environment, or the experimental manipulation of objects and events. Experiments must be repeatable.  making more than one observation allows the scientist to understand how variable the measures are.  This allows 'confidence' to be placed on a generalization.  This process of replication also allows statistical tests to be used to evaluate observed differences.  In both situations, replication increases the number of observations. Replication strengthens the information that can be derived from these observations by taking into account natural variation or variation that is not related to the experimental manipulation. This is also achieved with a control, a parallel test in which all variables remain constant except for the variable being tested or manipulated. Both replication and control are the fundamental base of all scientific experiments.

Consider our keen observer walking along the beach. Our observer comes to some tidal pools and in one tidal pool notices some living cockles and many empty cockleshells with holes in them. A nearby tidal pool has living cockleshells that don’t have any holes. From this observation it is apparent that the holes do not serve a purpose necessary for the cockles survival. In fact it would appear that the holes might result in the death of the cockle. This type of educated guessing is important in the scientific method as it enables scientists to narrow down their questions and formulate useful hypotheses. Our observer has also noted a snail species in the tide pool with the dead shell that appears to be absent from the tide pool with the living shell.

What our observer has here is a natural (in situ: meaning on site) experiment. If all other characteristics or variables between the tidal pools are the same, except for the presence of the snail, then we have a control (no snail), and an experimental (snail) tidal pool. Our observer needs to find other tidal pools that replicate the above situations to account for natural variability between the tidal pools that is independent of the snail’s presence.

Our observer records that for all tidal pools studied only the ones with snails present have dead cockleshells with holes through them. Our observer has evidence that the presence of this snail has something to do with the death of the cockleshells, but how reliable is this evidence? This is where analysis of the data is important, to determine the strength of the data collected.

A true hypothesis will give a true conclusion, but a false hypothesis, may give either a false or a true conclusion, due to other unknown variables. Therefore, science can only deal with truths in terms of probabilities. For this reason statistical analyses are performed on experimental data. Analyses help the scientist to determine the probability that a hypothesis is stating a truth.

If our observer notes that all the tidal pools with snails have cockle shells with holes and all the pools without snails do not then he has some strong evidence that the snails are responsible.  However, other variables that influence the snails presence might also be responsible for the holes and further observations or experiments that control for these factors need to be performed.

Upon further observation our observer notices some of the snails boring holes, with their abrasive tongues (radulas), through the cockles. The snails then proceed to feed on these cockles. So our observer can conclude that the snails are predators of the cockles and that the holes are a result of this predation. 

The acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis represents evidence, an answer to the question. If the hypothesis is rejected then new hypotheses with new experiments are designed. Evidence permits a scientist to regard a hypothesis with confidence. It does not offer proof. New evidence could always emerge that refutes a previously accepted hypothesis.

A theory is simply a hypothesis that has been supported by convincing evidence often by many different researchers. A theory is not a truth and is still subject to scrutiny by new evidence.

Return to the top

Limitations of the Scientific Method

The underlying theme of the scientific method is ‘testability’. Only observations that are testable can be subjected to the scientific method. This limits the phenomenon that science can deal with but this strict code is also responsible for the consistency of science and the value of the observations made. Science and scientists do not make value judgments and just because something is out of the realm of science does not make it outside the realm of possibility.  It is only impossible to be evaluated by science.

Scientists study the world around them through their own senses and through equipment that they have designed. Scientists readily acknowledge the limitations of sensory perception and the interactions between the observer and phenomenon. However, this is the only means open to scientists to study the world around them, and therefore are acceptable compromises. It is for this reason that replication by different observers in different settings is required before a hypothesis can be considered a theory.