editorially speaking Doing Science Science is a complex human activity that has been describedin a variety of ways, each stressing some particular aspect of the process. From one perspective, science wuld be considered as the art of asking auestions of nature. From this point of view, the experige& that scientists design are really the formulations of questions directed to nature; the results of the experiments contain the "answers" to the questions that were asked. The fidelity of the answers, that is the extent to which the answers are discemible within the results obtained, depends upon how sharply the questions were delineated. In this context, the art in the scientific process involves the phrasing of the questions and the identification of the attendant assumptions. Indeed, one of the most difficult aspects of "doing science" is the recognition and ferreting-kt of hidden assumptions. Experiments that are considered "elegant" by most working scientists are usually very simple in design. The execution of such simple experiments, and the carefully considered results obtained therefrom, are often the epitome of science, for they lay out clearly and unambiguouslv the answers to im~ortantauestions. ~ 6 basic e tenent of th'e questidning approach is that nature has no secrets. Rather. the focus is on the aualitv of the questions, which of course reflects on the sl&l of'the one who Doses the auestions--the scientist. The obstacles to the fukhering o i knowledge by questioning lie among the difficulties of formulating of the right auestions and avoiding ambiguous answersy~hisproc&s, which is never an easy task, requires great skill, usually developed and refined through practice. That condition provides an interesting problem for teachers, namely, how to provide mean-. ingful experiences in question-posing for novice learners that do not degenerate to rote repetition. For example, if titration is considered an important technique in chemis-
try, how can teaching experiences that are not just mechanical and routine be devised for students to use that technique? The best ~ractitionersof science know that incisive auestions and H k i ~ ~ fanalysis u~ of nature's answers williltimately yield their reward-an increase in our understauding of nature. They know that nature never lies. If there are problems with the answers to the auestions poised bv scientists, they can invariably be traced to f l a k in the questions that were asked. Artfully designed questions may require the use of new technologies, often obtained from apparently unrelated disciplines. New questions may requirefresh &sights, unencumbered by the baggage df past experience. New questions may also require probing old concepts. New questions may require struggling with the psychology of the possible destruction of old and useful ideas. These are difficult processes to teach the neophyte scientist. Providine students. whether thev be science-oriented or nonscience students, with a n insight into the nature of science is a formidable task because of the exquisite complexity of what it means to do science. It is not surprising that the ex~lorationof possible instructional methodoloeies in this area has not Selded many easily assimilable teaching strategies. Currently, the only wmmouly accepted strategy is to expose students to a mini-research environment, a condition that is often too costlv for anv but the declared major in the science. It has oft& beensaid that the only way to teach children how to ride a bicycle is to have them practice riding bicycles. If the nature of learning to ride a bicycle and the nature of science both involve practice, then teachers must devise more efficient processes for providing such practice in meaningful ways.
-
JJL
Volume 69 Number 2 February 1992
87
