Erroneous+Concepts+of+Scientific+Knowledge+and+Remedies

** What are misconceptions? **
Misconceptions might also be referred to as //preconceived notions, non-scientific beliefs, naive theories, mixed conceptions,// or //conceptual misunderstandings.// Basically, in science these are cases in which something a person knows and believes does not match what is known to be scientifically correct. Most people who hold misconceptions are NOT aware that their ideas are incorrect. When they are simply //told// they are wrong, they often have a hard time giving up their misconceptions-- especially if they have had a misconception for a long time. Imagine someone telling you your mother was not actually your mother, but your father! What is especially concerning about misconceptions is that we continue to build knowledge on our current understandings. Possessing misconceptions can have serious impacts on our learning.

** How do children form misconceptions? **
Misconceptions form in a variety of ways. Often misconceptions are passed on by one person to the next. In other cases, students may be presented with two correct concepts, but combine or confuse them. Sometimes students make what to them seems like a logical conclusion, but is simply drawn from too little evidence or lack of experience. One of the most common sources of misconceptions is the fact that our everyday language is often at odds with science; common vernacular doesn't always match the precise language used by scientists. While it's perfectly acceptable to say, //the toast burned// it is highly unlikely a chemist would agree with your observation. Though the connotation of "misconception" is negative, we must remember that the formation of these ideas often represent a child's effort to organize and understand the world around him/her. The success of these efforts will depend both on the developmental stage of the child and the experiences to which he/she is exposed.
 * [|The Power of Children's Thinking"] This chapter from //Inquiry: Thoughts, Views, and Strategies for the K-5 Classroom// does a great job of describing children's theory building.
 * [|Where Does the Old Moon Go?] First published in 1979, this article still rings true-- it provides illustrative cases of children's misconceptions.

** What are some common science misconceptions? **

 * Much research in science education has focused on students' misconceptions about science. While searching through the literature sounds like a great way to spend a Saturday, there are easier ways to locate common misconceptions. The Operations Physics Project has compiled an extensive list of students' misconceptions on a variety of science topics. Of course, this by no means should be considered the //only// misconceptions a student might have.
 * [|The Science Hobbyist: Misconceptions Page.]
 * If you //do// however want to spend your spare time sifting through the research you can start with Paul Brna's bibliography of literature dealing with misconceptions. Just visit [|References: Misconceptions.]

** How can teachers best address students' science misconceptions? **
A teacher who expects to simply point out students' mistakes to them will be met with little success; as stated previously, misconceptions are not easily given up. Often children work very hard to process information and arrive at their ideas. It takes just as much work to deconstruct those ideas and let go of the incorrect ones. The first step is to be aware of and diagnose student’s misconceptions. This involves going beyond the multiple choice assessment-- to asking open ended questions and truly //listening// to students' ideas. Next, it involved structuring experiences and the learning environment so that there are opportunities for students to "test out" their ideas and prove the correct concepts to themselves. This method is often referred to as teaching for //conceptual change.// In this article, the author suggests that a better understanding of the social aspects of learning, how students use their conceptual understandings outside the classroom, and how their experiences grow into scientific models that they find satisfactory will help teachers better understand their role. This is another method of instruction that has proven successful in addressing students' misconceptions. Lessons are taught in five phases, building f from the concrete to the abstract.
 * [|"Teaching for Conceptual Change: Confronting Children's Experience"]
 * [|The Learning Cycle]

="Science Myths" in [|K-6] Textbooks and Popular culture=

The complex and abstract nature of Science makes the subject difficult to understand. But complexity is not the only barrier to our understanding Science. The subject is made much more difficult by the presence of numerous misleading "Science Myths" which circulate in the popular culture, which are handed down from parents to children, and which have become so common and widespread that they appear widely in science

THE MISCONCEPTIONS:
also: [|Electricity Misconceptions] [|Static Electric Misconceptions]
 * [|SCIENTISTS USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?] not quite.
 * [|LAKES AND OCEANS ARE BLUE BECAUSE THEY REFLECT THE BLUE SKY?] No.
 * [|CLOUDS REMAIN ALOFT BECAUSE WATER DROPLETS ARE TINY?] Wrong!
 * [|THE SKY IS BLUE BECAUSE OF COMPLICATED PHYSICS] No, it's simple.
 * [|A LEMON-BATTERY CAN LIGHT A FLASHLIGHT BULB?] doesn't work!
 * [|SOUND TRAVELS BETTER THROUGH SOLIDS & LIQUIDS?] No it doesn't.
 * [|GRAVITY IN SPACE IS ZERO?] It's actually strong.
 * [|FILLED AND EMPTY BALLOONS DEMONSTRATE THE WEIGHT OF AIR?] Misleading.
 * [|GASES ALWAYS EXPAND TO FILL THEIR CONTAINERS?] Not quite.
 * [|FRICTION IS CAUSED BY SURFACE ROUGHNESS?] Obsolete idea!
 * [|ICE SKATES FUNCTION BY MELTING ICE VIA PRESSURE?] nope.
 * [|THE EARTH HAS 92 CHEMICAL ELEMENTS?]
 * [|LIGHT FROM THE SUN IS PARALLEL LIGHT?] The sun is *wide*!
 * [|A WING'S LIFTING FORCE IS CAUSED BY ITS SHAPE?], no, by trailing edge angle.
 * [|FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION?] Newton said otherwise.
 * [|BEN FRANKLIN'S KITE WAS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING?] He'd have died.
 * [|THE MAIN LENS OF YOUR EYE IS INSIDE THE EYE?]
 * [|WHEN ONE PRISM SPLITS LIGHT INTO COLORS, A SECOND IDENTICAL PRISM CAN RECOMBINE THEM?]
 * [|CLOUDS, FOG, AND SHOWER-ROOM MIST ARE MADE OF WATER VAPOR?]
 * [|RAINDROPS HAVE POINTS?]
 * [|AIR IS ALMOST ENTIRELY WEIGHTLESS?]
 * [|SHADOWS VANISH ON CLOUDY DAYS BECAUSE THE SUN ISN'T BRIGHT ENOUGH?]
 * [|INFRARED LIGHT IS A FORM OF HEAT?]
 * [|THERE ARE SEVEN COLORS IN THE RAINBOW?]
 * [|THE EARTH'S NORTH AND SOUTH MAGNETIC POLES RESIDE JUST BELOW THE SURFACE?]
 * [|LASER LIGHT IS "IN PHASE" LIGHT?]
 * [|LASER LIGHT IS PARALLEL LIGHT?]
 * [|LASERS ARE COHERENT BECAUSE ATOMS EMIT IN PHASE?]
 * [|IRON AND STEEL ARE THE ONLY STRONGLY MAGNETIC MATERIALS?]
 * [|RE-ENTERING SPACECRAFT ARE HEATED BY AIR FRICTION?]
 * [|CARS AND AIRPLANES ARE SLOWED DOWN BY AIR FRICTION?]


 * [|THE NORTH MAGNETIC POLE OF THE EARTH IS IN THE NORTH?]
 * [|SALT WATER IS FULL OF SODIUM CHLORIDE MOLECULES?]
 * [|LIGHT AND RADIO WAVES ALWAYS TRAVEL AT "THE SPEED OF LIGHT"?]

This myth deals with the general belief that with increased evidence there is a developmental sequence through which scientific ideas pass on their way to final acceptance. Many believe that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stages and finally mature as laws. A former U.S. president showed his misunderstanding of science by saying that he was not troubled by the idea of evolution because it was "just a theory." The president's misstatement is the essence of this myth; that an idea is not worthy of consideration until "lawness" has been bestowed upon it. The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other--no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953). For instance, Newton described the relationship of mass and distance to gravitational attraction between objects with such precision that we can use the law of gravity to plan spaceflights. During the Apollo 8 mission, astronaut Bill Anders responded to the question of who was flying the spacecraft by saying, "I think that Issac Newton is doing most of the driving fight now." (Chaikin, 1994, p. 127). His response was understood by all to mean that the capsule was simply following the basic laws of physics described by Isaac Newton years centuries earlier. The more thorny, and many would say more interesting, issue with respect to gravity is the explanation for why the law operates as it does. At this point, there is no well. accepted theory of gravity. Some physicists suggest that gravity waves are the correct explanation for the law of gravity, but with clear confirmation and consensus lacking, most feel that the theory of gravity still eludes science. Interestingly, Newton addressed the distinction between law and theory with respect to gravity. Although he had discovered the law of gravity, he refrained from speculating publically about its cause. In Principial, Newton states" . . . I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis . . ." " . . . it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained . . ." (Newton, 1720/1946, p. 547).
 * MYTH 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws**

The definition of the term hypothesis has taken on an almost mantra- like life of its own in science classes. If a hypothesis is always an educated guess as students typically assert, the question remains, "an educated guess about what?" The best answer for this question must be, that without a clear view of the context in which the term is used, it is impossible to tell. The term hypothesis has at least three definitions, and for that reason, should be abandoned, or at least used with caution. For instance, when Newton said that he framed no hypothesis as to the cause of gravity he was saying that he had no speculation about an explanation of why the law of gravity operates as it does. In this case, Newton used the term hypothesis to represent an immature theory. As a solution to the hypothesis problem, Sonleitner (1989) suggested that tentative or trial laws be called generalizing hypotheses with provisional theories referred to as explanatory hypotheses. Another approach would be to abandon the word hypothesis altogether in favor of terms such as speculative law or speculative theory. With evidence, generalizing hypotheses may become laws and speculative theories become theories, but under no circumstances do theories become laws. Finally, when students are asked to propose a hypothesis during a laboratory experience, the term now means a prediction. As for those hypotheses that are really forecasts, perhaps they should simply be called what they are, predictions.
 * Myth 2: A Hypothesis is an Educated Guess**

The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient. One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated. Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench. Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science.
 * Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists**

All investigators, including scientists, collect and interpret empirical evidence through the process called induction. This is a technique by which individual pieces of evidence are collected and examined until a law is discovered or a theory is invented. Useful as this technique is, even a preponderance of evidence does not guarantee the production of valid knowledge because of what is called the problem of induction. Induction was first formalized by Frances Bacon in the 17th century. In his book, Novum Organum (1620/ 1952), Bacon advised that facts be assimilated without bias to reach a conclusion. The method of induction he suggested is the principal way in which humans traditionally have produced generalizations that permit predictions. What then is the problem with induction? It is both impossible to make all observations pertaining to a given situation and illogical to secure all relevant facts for all time, past, present and future. However, only by making all relevant observations throughout all time, could one say that a final valid conclusion had been made. This is the problem of induction. On a personal level, this problem is of little consequence, but in science the problem is significant. Scientists formulate laws and theories that are supposed to hold true in all places and for all time but the problem of induction makes such a guarantee impossible. The proposal of a new law begins through induction as facts are heaped upon other relevant facts. Deduction is useful in checking the validity of a law. For example, if we postulate that all swans are white, we can evaluate the law by predicting that the next swan found will also be white. If it is, the law is supported, but not proved as will be seen in the discussion of another science myth. Locating even a single black swan will cause the law to be called into question. The nature of induction itself is another interesting aspect associated with this myth. If we set aside the problem of induction momentarily, there is still the issue of how scientists make the final leap from the mass of evidence to the conclusion. In an idealized view of induction, the accumulated evidence will simply result in the production of a new law or theory in a procedural or mechanical fashion. In reality, there is no such method. The issue is far more complex -- and interesting --than that. The final creative leap from evidence to scientific knowledge is the focus of another myth of science.
 * Myth 4: Evidence Accumulated Carefully Will Result in Sure Knowledge**

The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993). The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this myth worth exploring. In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue. Consider the example of the white swans discussed earlier. One could search the world and see only white swans, and arrive at the generalization that "all swans are white. " However, the discovery of one black swan has the potential to overturn, or at least result in modifications of, this proposed law of nature. However, whether scientists routinely try to falsify their notions and how much contrary evidence it takes for a scientist's mind to change are issues worth exploring.
 * Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof**

We accept that no single guaranteed method of science can account for the success of science, but realize that induction, the collection and interpretation of individual facts providing the raw materials for laws and theories, is at the foundation of most scientific endeavors. This awareness brings with it a paradox. If induction itself is not a guaranteed method for arriving at conclusions, how do scientists develop useful laws and theories? Induction makes use of individual facts that are collected, analyzed and examined. Some observers may perceive a pattern in these data and propose a law in response, but there is no logical or procedural method by which the pattern is suggested. With a theory, the issue is much the same. Only the creativity of the individual scientist permits the discovery of laws and the invention of theories. If there truly was a single scientific method, two individuals with the same expertise could review the same facts and reach identical conclusions. There is no guarantee of this because the range and nature of creativity is a personal attribute. Unfortunately, many common science teaching orientations and methods serve to work against the creative element in science. The majority of laboratory exercises, for instance, are verification activities. The teacher discusses what will happen in the laboratory, the manual provides step-by-step directions, and the student is expected to arrive at a particular answer. Not only is this approach the antithesis of the way in which science actually operates, but such a portrayal must seem dry, clinical and uninteresting to many students. In her book, They're Not Dumb, They're Different (1990) Shiela Tobias argues that many capable and clever students reject science as a career because they are not given an opportunity to see it as an exciting and creative pursuit. The moral in Tobias' thesis is that science itself may be impoverished when students who feel a need for a creative outlet eliminate it as a potential career because of the way it is taught. Philosophers of science have found it useful to refer to the work of Karl Popper (1968) and his principle of falsifiability to provide an operational definition of science. Popper believed that only those ideas that are potentially falsifiable are scientific ideas. For instance, the law of gravity states that more massive objects exert a stronger gravitational attraction than do objects with less mass when distance is held constant. This is a scientific law because it could be falsified if newly-discovered objects operate differently with respect to gravitational attraction. In contrast, the core idea among creationists is that species were placed on earth fully-formed by some supernatural entity. Obviously, there is no scientific method by which such a belief could be shown to be false. Since this special creation view is impossible to falsify, it is not science at all and the term creation science is an oxymoron. Creation science is a religious belief and as such, does not require that it be falsifiable. Hundreds of years ago thoughtful theologians and scientists carved out their spheres of influence and have since coexisted with little acrimony. Today, only those who fail to understand the distinction between science and religion confuse the rules, roles, and limitations of these two important world views. It should now be clear that some questions simply must not be asked of scientists. During a recent creation science trial for instance, Nobel laureates were asked to sign a statement about the nature of science to provide some guidance to the court. These famous scientists responded resoundingly to support such a statement; after all they were experts in the realm of science (Klayman, Slocombe, Lehman, & Kaufman, 1986). Later, those interested in citing expert opinion in the abortion debate asked scientists to issue a statement regarding their feelings on this issue. Wisely, few participated. Science cannot answer the moral and ethical questions engendered by the matter of abortion. Of course, scientists as individuals have personal opinions about many issues, but as a group, they must remain silent if those issues are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Science simply cannot address moral, ethical, aesthetic, social and metaphysical questions. Scientists are no different in their level of objectivity than are other professionals. They are careful in the analysis of evidence and in the procedures applied to arrive at conclusions. With this admission, it may seem that this myth is valid, but contributions from both the philosophy of science and psychology reveal that there are at least three major reasons that make complete objectivity impossible. Many philosophers of science support Popper's (1963) view that science can advance only through a string of what he called conjectures and refutations. In other words, scientists should propose laws and theories as conjectures and then actively work to disprove or refute those ideas. Popper suggests that the absence of contrary evidence, demonstrated through an active program of refutation, will provide the best support available. It may seem like a strange way of thinking about verification, but the absence of disproof is considered support. There is one major problem with the idea of conjecture and refutation. Popper seems to have proposed it as a recommendation for scientists, not as a description of what scientists do. From a philosophical perspective the idea is sound, but there are no indications that scientists actively practice programs to search for disconfirming evidence. Another aspect of the inability of scientists to be objective is found in theory-laden observation, a psychological notion (Hodson, 1986). Scientists, like all observers, hold a myriad of preconceptions and biases about the way the world operates. These notions, held in the subconscious, affect everyone's ability to make observations. It is impossible to collect and interpret facts without any bias. There have been countless cases in the history of science in which scientists have failed to include particular observations in their final analyses of phenomena. This occurs, not because of fraud or deceit, but because of the prior knowledge possessed by the individual. Certain facts either were not seen at all or were deemed unimportant based on the scientists's prior knowledge. In earlier discussions of induction, we postulated that two individuals reviewing the same data would not be expected to reach the same conclusions. Not only does individual creativity play a role, but the issue of personal theory-laden observation further complicates the situation. This lesson has clear implications for science teaching. Teachers typically provide learning experiences for students without considering their prior knowledge. In the laboratory, for instance, students are asked to perform activities, make observations and then form conclusions. There is an expectation that the conclusions formed will be both self-evident and uniform. In other words, teachers anticipate that the data will lead all pupils to the same conclusion. This could only happen if each student had the same exact prior conceptions and made and evaluated observations using identical schemes. This does not happen in science nor does it occur in the science classroom. Related to the issue of theory-based observations is the allegiance to the paradigm. Thomas Kuhn (1970), in his ground-breaking analysis of the history of science, shows that scientists work within a research tradition called a paradigm. This research tradition, shared by those working in a given discipline, provides clues to the questions worth investigating, dictates what evidence is admissible and prescribes the tests and techniques that are reasonable. Although the paradigm provides direction to the research it may also stifle or limit investigation. Anything that confines the research endeavor necessarily limits objectivity. While there is no conscious desire on the part of scientists to limit discussion, it is likely that some new ideas in science are rejected because of the paradigm issue. When research reports are submitted for publication they are reviewed by other members of the discipline. Ideas from outside the paradigm are liable to be eliminated from consideration as crackpot or poor science and thus do not appear in print. Examples of scientific ideas that were originally rejected because they fell outside the accepted paradigm include the sun-centered solar system, warm-bloodedness in dinosaurs, the germ-theory of disease, and continental drift. When first proposed early in this century by Alfred Wegener, the idea of moving continents, for example, was vigorously rejected. Scientists were not ready to embrace a notion so contrary to the traditional teachings of their discipline. Continental drift was finally accepted in the 1960s with the proposal of a mechanism or theory to explain how continental plates move (Hallam, 1975 and Menard, 1986). This fundamental change in the earth sciences, called a revolution by Kuhn, might have occurred decades earlier had it not been for the strength of the paradigm. It would be unwise to conclude a discussion of scientific paradigms on a negative note. Although the examples provided do show the contrary aspects associated with paradigm-fixity, Kuhn would argue that the blinders created by allegiance to the paradigm help keep scientists on track. His review of the history of science demonstrates that paradigms are responsible for far more successes in science than delays. Throughout their school science careers, students are encouraged to associate science with experimentation. Virtually all hands-on experiences that students have in science class is called experiments even if it would be more accurate to refer to these exercises as technical procedures, explorations or activities. True experiments involve carefully orchestrated procedures along with control and test groups usually with the goal of establishing a cause and effect relationship. Of course, true experimentation is a useful tool in science, but is not the sole route to knowledge. Many note-worthy scientists have used non-experimental techniques to advance knowledge. In fact, in a number of science disciplines, true experimentation is not possible because of the inability to control variables. Many fundamental discoveries in astronomy are based on extensive observations rather than experiments. Copernicus and Kepler changed our view of the solar system using observational evidence derived from lengthy and detailed observations frequently contributed by other scientists, but neither performed experiments. Charles Darwin punctuated his career with an investigatory regime more similar to qualitative techniques used in the social sciences than the experimental techniques commonly associated with the natural sciences. For his most revolutionary discoveries, Darwin recorded his extensive observations in notebooks annotated by speculations and thoughts about those observations. Although Darwin supported the inductive method proposed by Bacon, he was aware that observation without speculation or prior understanding was both ineffective and impossible. The techniques advanced by Darwin have been widely used by scientists Goodall and Nossey in their primate studies. Scientific knowledge is gained in a variety of ways including observation, analysis, speculation, library investigation and experimentation. Frequently, the final step in the traditional scientific method is that researchers communicate their results so that others may learn from and evaluate their research. When completing laboratory reports, students are frequently told to present their methods section so clearly that others could repeat the activity. The conclusion that students will likely draw from this request is that professional scientists are also constantly reviewing each other's experiments to check up on each other. Unfortunately, while such a check and balance system would be useful, the number of findings from one scientist checked by others is vanishingly small In reality, most scientists are simply too busy and research funds too limited for this type of review. The result of the lack of oversight has recently put science itself under suspicion. With the pressures of academic tenure, personal competition and funding, it is not surprising that instances of outright scientific fraud do occur. However, even without fraud, the enormous amount of original scientific research published, and the pressure to produce new information rather than reproduce others' work dramatically increases the chance that errors will go unnoticed. An interesting corollary to this myth is that scientists rarely report valid, but negative results. While this is understandable given the space limitations in scientific journals, the failure to report what did not work is a problem. Only when those working in a particular scientific discipline have access to all of the information regarding a phenomenon -- both positive and negative -- can the discipline progress.
 * Myth 6: Science Is Procedural More Than Creative**
 * Myth 7: Science and its Methods Can Answer All Questions.**
 * Myth 8. Scientists are Particularly Objective**
 * Myth 9: Experiments are the Principle Route to Scientific Knowledge**
 * Myth 10: All Work in Science is Reviewed to Keep the Process Honest.**

Conclusions
If, in fact, students and many of their teachers hold these myths to be true, we have strong support for a renewed focus on science itself rather than just its facts and principles in science teaching and science teacher education. This is one of the central messages in both of the new science education projects. Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1994) project both strongly suggest that school science must give students an opportunity to experience science authentically, free of the legends, misconceptions and idealizations inherent in the myths about the nature of the scientific enterprise. There must be increased opportunity for both preservice and inservice teachers to learn about and apply the real rules of the game of science accompanied by careful review of textbooks to remove the "creeping fox terriers" that have helped provide an inaccurate view of the nature of science. Only by clearing away the mist of half-truths and revealing science in its full light, with knowledge of both its strengths and limitations, will learners become enamored of the true pageant of science and be able fairly to judge its proces
 * || [[image:http://www.science.org.au/images/smallseg.gif width="30" height="51" caption="[Go to Home page]" link="http://www.science.org.au/"]] || **[|Australian Academy of Science]** ||

[|Awards] [|Basser Library] [|Education] [|Events] [|Fellowship] [|International] [|Media releases] [|National Committees] [|Nobel Australians] [|Policy] [|Reports and submissions] [|Publications] [|The Shine Dome] || [|Home] > [|Science education]
 * [|About the Academy]

BACK TO BASICS || || The sites listed below provide an excellent introduction to several basic science concepts. You can visit the links in sequence or use the annotations to select those that contain information most relevant to your interests. || [|Atoms and molecules] [|DNA and genes][|Electromagnetic radiation] [|Energy][|The immune system][|The solar system][|The structure of the Earth][|Weather and climate] ||  In addition to information on atoms, molecules and ions, this site introduces elements (a substance made up of only one type of atom). Describes how electrons determine an element's chemical properties and its position in the periodic table (a way of organising the elements). The information on water and pH is not necessary for a basic understanding of atoms and molecules. Simple diagrams effectively illustrate concepts. You can click on highlighted words for brief definitions. ||
 * || Annotated lists of sites are available for:
 * **[|Atoms, molecules, water, pH] (Clermont College, University of Cincinnati, USA)**

[|Spectroscope of an atom] This animation of a single electron spinning around a nucleus conveys the idea of how much empty space there is in an atom and why people speak of an 'electron cloud'. Teachers might like to try the activities at this site: [|Paper cutting] demonstrates how small an atom is and [|Mighty molecules] shows how to build molecules from gumdrops and toothpicks. ||
 * **The Phantom's Portrait Parlor (The Atoms Family, Miami Museum of Science, USA)**

//**When you've mastered the basics, try this site:**//|| **[|WebElements 2000 periodic table scholar edition] (Web Elements, UK)** You can click on each element in the periodic table to link to more information about it. Graphics are used to illustrate structures and properties of elements. ||

 [|What is DNA?] Explains that instructions providing all the information necessary for a living organism to grow and function are present in every cell. The instructions are in the form of a molecule called DNA. The structure of DNA is represented by a ladder twisted into a spiral shape (a double helix), with each rung of the ladder represented by a pair of bases. There are four bases – adenine (A), cystosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) – and A pairs with T and C pairs with G. You can think of each base as representing a letter, with the letters grouped in threes to form words and a number of words making a sentence, or a gene. [|What is a gene?] Explains that genes are like instruction manuals that contain directions to build the proteins to make our bodies function. Other topics – '[|What is a chromosome?]', '[|What is heredity?]', '[|What is a protein?]' and '[|What is mitosis/meiosis?]' – are also available. Note: All information is presented as animated slide shows that require the Flash plugin. ||
 * **Genetic Science Learning Center (University of Utah, USA)**

The information is presented as a series of concepts, each of which is illustrated with a clear diagram on a Powerpoint slide. Teachers can go to 'View/print Powerpoint' to print out black line masters for overheads or can create their own slides by mixing and matching information from slides. Explains how genes are used to make proteins that perform a wide range of functions in living cells. Changes in a gene cause a change in the protein and its function. The site goes on to explain how changes in genes (mutations) can cause diseases and what is involved in gene testing. ||
 * **[|Understanding cancer series: Gene testing] (National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA)**

//**When you've mastered the basics, try these sites:**// Information is organised around 41 key concepts, with an explanation of the science behind each concept. Although the explanations are sometimes complex, the text is clearly written. Animations and videos add interest, but a good understanding of the basic science is needed to appreciate them fully. The 41 concepts are divided into three sections: Covers genetics and chromosomes. Includes 'Children resemble their parents', 'Genetic inheritance follows rules' and 'Chromosomes carry genes'. Covers DNA, RNA and proteins, and what genes are. Includes 'One gene makes one protein', 'The DNA molecule is shaped like a twisted ladder' and 'DNA words are three letters long'. Covers some concepts relating to DNA that do not fit into the traditional pattern (eg, 'Some viruses store genetic information in RNA' and 'Some DNA can jump'). ||
 * **[|DNA from the beginning] (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA)**
 * Classical genetics**
 * Molecules of genetics**
 * Genetic organization and control**

Gives a history of the development of the scientific understanding of DNA: Mendel's principles of genetic inheritance; DNA as the carrier of hereditary information; and Watson and Crick's model of the structure of DNA. Uses some technical language. [|DNA: Two views (graphic)] An illustration of the DNA structure that shows how the DNA bases join and ultimately form a double helix. ||
 * **Access Excellence (USA)**[|The structure of the DNA molecule]

 [|Electromagnetic radiation] Introduces the idea that radio waves, microwaves and visible light are all examples of electromagnetic waves and differ from each other only in the length of the wave. (A diagram of two different wavelengths is included.) Explains that electromagnetic waves are also called electromagnetic radiation because the waves radiate from electrically charged particles. The full range of wavelengths is known as the electromagnetic spectrum. [|Electromagnetic spectrum] A diagram of the electromagnetic spectrum showing:
 * **MicroWorlds (Advanced Light Source, Berkeley Lab, USA)**
 * wavelengths in metres;
 * their size relative to the size of a full stop on the page;
 * their common names;
 * the source of the radiation; and
 * the frequency (waves per second). ||

Explains that the visible spectrum appears when white light is shone through a prism. Two alternative ways of describing the behaviour of light – photons and waves – are introduced, then each of the different wavelengths of light is discussed. ||
 * **[|The electromagnetic spectrum] (Gondar Design Sciences, UK)**

Builds on the information in the above sites. Also explains the three ways of expressing (and measuring) electromagnetic radiation – energy, wavelength and frequency. ||
 * **[|Measuring the electromagnetic spectrum] (Imagine the Universe, Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA, USA)**

//**When you've mastered the basics, try this site:**//|| **[|How light works] (How Stuff Works, USA)** This site concentrates on one form of electromagnetic radiation – light. The collection of six articles clearly explains some of the complex but interesting aspects of light – 'Ways of thinking about light'; 'What is light?'; 'How do you produce a photon?'; How are colours made?'; 'What happens when light hits an object?'; and 'Why do we see rainbows in soap bubbles?' ||

 //**Introducing energy**// //Most of us associate energy with movement. A child who is always running and jumping is said to have a lot of energy. This example contains the seeds of the whole concept of energy, for we associate energy not only with the actual activity of running and jumping, but also with the possibility of doing these things. A child who is ordinarily running and jumping but who is, for the moment, quite still, has suppressed energy or potential energy. The child has the potential to do a lot of running and jumping.// //We can therefore recognise at the outset these two different sorts of energy – energy of motion (which is also called kinetic energy, from the Greek// kineo//, to move), and suppressed or stored energy (which we call potential energy). Potential energy can have many forms. The wound-up spring of a toy has potential energy that can be converted into energy of motion when the toy is set running. Water in a high dam similarly has potential energy that can be converted into energy of motion when we open the sluice gates of the dam and the water streams down.// //One of the important things about energy is that it can be used to do things. In formal terms we call this 'useful work', but it might not be useful and it might be play rather than work! Simply making something move might be useful work, but so also could be cutting materials, stirring liquids, lifting loads or heating foods.// //**Conversion of energy**// //One form of energy can be readily converted to another. The elastic energy of a wound spring can be converted to energy of motion of a toy. The chemical energy of petrol can be converted to the energy of motion of a car, and also to heat energy in the engine. The chemical energy in an electric battery can be converted into electrical energy and then into light (in a torch) or into motion (in a toy). It can even be converted into sound energy (in a radio or iPod). These various conversion processes are very important to scientific understanding.// //**Conservation of energy**// //One of the most important things recognised by scientists about 100 years ago was that energy is never actually created or destroyed. It simply changes from one form to another or moves from one place to another. The processes of energy conversion always tend to make the energy less easily available and less useful. All of our useful sources of energy (eg, oil, coal, spinning wheels) convert their energy to heat. Most of this heat is dissipated in air or water and we can't make any further use of it.// //The phrase 'conservation of energy' is a physical fact that is now so well established that it is referred to as a 'law'. It is an entirely different thing to the exhortation that we should all conserve energy, by which we mean not waste it.// || Explains what renewable energy is and provides links to information on different types of renewable energy. Non-renewable energy Explains what non-renewable energy is and provides links to information on different types of non-renewable energy. //**Background:** Starting with the use of fire, many advances we associate with civilisation have come from our capacity to harness energy. Like any living thing, a human needs energy (food) in order to carry out all the processes of life. But, unlike most other living things, we can harness energy from sources other than our food and use this energy to carry out much more than simple life processes. The extent to which we have been able to use wind, water, wood, fossil fuel and atomic energy has made it possible for us to modify our environment more than any other species on Earth. Since the Industrial Revolution, our energy consumption has increased enormously. Modern society needs vast quantities of energy. We tend to refer to some sources of energy derived from the sun as renewable. This is because the amount of energy in the sun is so great and because the sun has produced energy continuously for as long as humans have existed. Indirect sources of solar energy include biomass (eg, wood), wind and wave energy, and hydroelectricity. And, of course, sunlight itself is direct solar energy. Renewable sources of energy can be replaced in a short period of time, so can be used over and over again. Fossil fuels (natural gas, coal and oil) also contain energy that originally came from the sun. However, fossil fuels form at such a slow rate that, in practice, they are non-renewable. What we use is not being replaced.// ||
 * **Energy (ActewAGL, Australia)**A brief introduction to energy. Good use of everyday examples to illustrate concepts. //**Background:** Because the concept of energy is not particularly easy to grasp, we are providing more background information than usual.//
 * **[|The Energy Story, Chapter 1: What is energy?] (California Energy Commission, USA)**Provides clear information on what energy is and different forms of energy. ||
 * **Energy (ActewAGL, Australia)**[|Renewable energy]

//**When you've mastered the basics, try these sites:**//
 * **[|How force, power, torque and energy work] (How Stuff Works, USA)**Explains energy in the context of mechanical work. ||
 * **[|The Energy Story, Chapter 2: What is electricity?] (California Energy Commission, USA)**Explains that electricity is the movement of electrons among atoms of matter. Also explains electrical energy in terms of a battery, a motor and static electricity. Includes illustrations and a do-at-home experiment on static electricity. ||

 This online lecture provides the user with basic information about the human immune system. The lecture demonstrates how immune cells co-operate to rid the body of unwelcome invaders such as bacteria and viruses. It also explains how malfunction of the immune system may result in allergies, AIDS or cancer. Teachers can download the PowerPoint presentation or print onto overheads. ||
 * **[|Understanding cancer series: The immune system] (National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA)**

Gives a good understanding of the interactions and complexity of the immune system. Uses helpful analogies (eg, explains that our immune system must distinguish the 'fingerprints' of intruders from those of 'family members' – our own cells and molecules). ||
 * **[|The immune system: A primer] (The Body: An AIDS and HIV Information Resource, USA)**

Uses many simple diagrams to explain the basics of how different parts of the immune system interact to defend our bodies against viruses. Goes on to explain that AIDS interferes with the body's normal immune response. ||
 * **[|How the immune system fights disease] (San Francisco AIDS Foundation, USA)**

//**When you've mastered the basics, try these sites:**// Explains how the different components of the immune system work together to combat infection in a highly integrated way. Includes an effective animation to illustrate the immune response. ||
 * **[|Cancer and the immune system: The vital connection] (Cancer Research Institute, USA)**

Uses annotated diagrams to give an overview of the immune response system and how the components interrelate. ||
 * **[|Lymphatic system and immunity] (Estrella Mountain Community College, USA)**

 A brief introduction to our solar system and its origin. //**Background:** The solar system consists of the sun; the eight planets (including Earth); at least five dwarf planets (including Pluto); satellites of the planets; and hundreds of thousands of smaller pieces of rock and ice (asteroids and comets). The sun lies at the centre of the solar system and is the largest object in it.// [|Stars] Explains that our sun, like other stars, is a giant ball of glowing gas. //**Background:** Stars vary in size, brightness and age. Stars turn hydrogen into helium and other elements by means of nuclear fusion. In the process, huge amounts of energy are released as heat, light and other types of radiation. Our sun is a rather ordinary star, 150 million kilometres away from Earth. Distances in the universe are so large that we usually need to use much larger units than kilometres to measure them. Astronomers use the distance that light travels in a year (at a speed of about 300,000 kilometres per second) as a convenient unit for distances – 1 light year is about 10 million million kilometres. The sun is only about 8 light minutes away from Earth, but the nearest star is 4.3 light years away.//
 * **Discovery Centre (Museum Victoria,** **Australia)** [|The solar system]

[|Galaxies] Covers the Milky Way (our Galaxy) and describes the shapes of different galaxies. //**Background:** The sun is just one of hundreds of millions of stars that make up our Galaxy. (Galaxies are huge regions of space that contain hundreds of billions of stars, planets, glowing nebulae, gas, dust, and empty space.) Our sun is a medium-sized star about two-thirds of the way out from the centre of our Galaxy, which is shaped like a flat spiral. The estimated number of other galaxies out to the edge of what we can see with our largest telescope is about 100,000 million.// [|The universe] Explains how the 'big bang' theory explains the origin of the universe. //**Background:** By careful measurements astronomers know that the universe is expanding, so that all galaxies are moving further apart. Calculating back, they are able to determine that 10,000 million-20,000 million years ago all galaxies were packed together. Apparently at that time they were blown apart as a result of a huge explosion – the 'big bang'. This was not an ordinary explosion because space and time themselves came into existence at that moment – the phrase 'before the big bang' has no meaning.// [|Planets] From this page you can access information about each of the planets, as well as information about comets, meteors and asteroids. [|Skynotes] Monthly notes about what you can see in the night skies over Australia. ||

//** When you've mastered the basics, try this site: **//|| **The nine planets (USA)**[|An overview of the solar system] Gives the relative sizes of the eight planets and their orbits. Also lists different ways the planets can be classified. //**Background:** The four planets closest to the sun (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) are smaller planets and are composed of rock and metal. The four outer planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are giant planets and are composed of gases. The orbits of the planets are elliptical.// [|Contents] A list of links to extensive information on the planets and their moons, the sun, and smaller bodies such as comets, asteroids and meteorites. For each item there is an overview of its history and current scientific knowledge, as well as excellent photographs to illustrate different features. There are also many links from highlighted words within the text to more in-depth articles.


 * **[|Welcome to the planets] (Planetary Data System, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA, USA)**A collection of captioned images of planets and spacecraft from NASA's planetary exploration program. ||

 Describes the internal structure of the Earth (includes diagram). //**Background:** The Earth is a rocky planet 12,750 kilometres in diameter. Deep in its centre lies the core, which has a diameter of about 6900 kilometres. The core is surrounded by a layer of rocks called the mantle, about 2900 kilometres thick, which constitutes about 80 per cent of the planet's volume. Above the mantle lies the lithosphere, the outermost shell of the Earth. Averaging at least about 80 kilometres in thickness, the lithosphere is rigid and strong. The top layer of the lithosphere is called the crust. The lithosphere is broken up into moving plates that contain the continents and oceans.// [|Historical perspective] Describes Wegener's ideas about moving continents. Includes a series of illustrations showing the break-up of the supercontinent Pangaea, an important aspect of the theory of continental drift. //**Background:** Although it feels solid enough, our planet's rocky surface, on land and under the sea, is a restless jigsaw of slowly moving pieces. These moving pieces are called plates and the formation and movement of these plates is best explained by the theory of plate tectonics. This theory was developed in the 1960s but ideas of moving continents were first put forward as early as 1596, and in 1912 Wegener introduced the theory of continental drift. Wegener's theory was based on several observations – the remarkable fit of the South American and African continents; the occurrence of fossils and unusual geologic structures on the matching coastlines; and the evidence of dramatic climate changes on some continents.// [|Developing the theory] Discusses the scientific developments that encouraged the formulation of the plate-tectonics theory. //**Background:** The theory of continental drift became more reasonable as knowledge about the Earth's crust increased. Studies of the ocean floor showed that the oceanic crust was constantly being recycled. This awareness that the Earth's crust moved provided geologists with an explanation for the movement of continents – they are part of a 'conveyor belt' system in which the lithosphere moves over the inner part of the Earth. The observation that the oceanic crust was recycled, and other scientific observations, led to the development of the theory of plate tectonics.// [|Understanding plate motions] Describes and illustrates the types of plate boundaries. //**Background:** The place where two tectonic plates meet is called a plate boundary. There are different types of plate boundaries depending on how the plates are moving in relation to each other:// * //divergent boundaries – where plates pull away from each other;// [|Some unanswered questions] Describes the forces that move the tectonic plates and poses some unanswered questions about the details of plate movement. //**Background:** Below the lithosphere, thermal convection currents circulate, slowly moving the partially molten mantle (as when a saucepan of soup is heated). In the process, the plates of the lithosphere move because of the sideways movements of the currents underneath.// [|Geologic time] Introduces the two timescales that are used to measure the age of the Earth. //**Background:** Time is important to a geologist. Not only time in the present and the future, but also in the past. Geological events can be placed in an order or sequence from the oldest to the youngest without knowing the actual time at which an event occurred. For example, if you were given a collection of newspapers that had the dates removed, you could place them in order from oldest to most recent by reading about the events or the people described in them. This kind of exercise enables us to determine relative time.// //To learn about the rate at which geological events take place, we must be able to measure numerical time. Radioactive breakdown of certain elements in minerals can be used to measure time accurately. These radiometric dating methods produce an absolute time scale.// ||
 * **United States Geological Survey**[|Inside the Earth]
 * //convergent boundaries – where one plate goes under another; and//
 * //transform boundaries – where plates slide horizontally past each other.//

Presents a table with the names and dates of the major divisions that are used to describe geological time. //**Background:** The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. To make it easier to understand the history of the Earth over this long time period, geologists have divided all the time since the Earth was formed into four eons, which are further divided into eras, periods and epochs. The traditional form of a geological time scale depicts the oldest time at the bottom and the most recent at the top with the present day at zero.// ||
 * **University of Alaska Fairbanks (USA)**[|Geologic time scale]

//** When you've mastered the basics, try this site: **//|| **The Paleomap Project (Christopher R. Scotese, USA)**[|The paleogeographic method] Summarises the methods used in palaeogeography to map the past positions of the continents and the changing distribution of topographical features such as mountains and oceans. [|Earth history] Presents detailed diagrams of the position of the continents and the location of other features (eg, ancient mountain ranges and active plate boundaries) for each major geologic time period – and predictions for the future.

Presents an historical look at the kinds of scientific evidence that supported the theory of plate tectonics. Australian scientists like Edward Irving and Ian McDougall contributed to these scientific findings. ||
 * **Beyond Discovery (National Academy of Sciences, USA)**[|When the Earth moves: Seafloor spreading and plate tectonics]

 (Expanded versions of these very simple introductions are available: [] []) //**Background:** Local, short-term characteristics of the atmosphere (eg, wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture and pressure) make up the weather of a particular place. The climate can be thought of as the long-term average of the weather of a particular place.// [|Measuring weather] and [|Forecasting] A very brief description of how meteorologists measure various elements of the weather and then use these measurements to make forecasts. (Expanded versions are available: ([] []) //**Background:** Meteorologists measure temperature, winds, rainfall, pressure, humidity, sunshine and cloudiness. Using patterns of recorded weather, meteorologists attempt to predict what might happen next.// [|Clouds] Explains how clouds form, and describes (with illustrations) four different types of clouds. (An expanded version is available at: [].) //**Background:** When air rises, either because it is warmed by the sun or because it is blown over high ground by the wind, it cools down. If the air becomes saturated with water vapour, then some of the vapour condenses as it cools, forming tiny water droplets. A mass of millions of these tiny suspended droplets forms a cloud. If the air rises slowly and gently over a whole region, then the cloud forms a fairly thin uniform layer and is called stratus cloud. If the air rises in a disorganised way, usually on a hot day, then the cloud forms as isolated cauliflower-like structures and is called cumulus cloud. Some clouds form very high in the cold atmosphere and actually consist of tiny ice crystals rather than water droplets. These are called cirrus clouds. Rain forms when clouds are thick enough and contain enough water for the droplets to come together and form raindrops. Heavy rain usually comes from towering cumulus clouds, while light rain comes from thick stratus clouds.//
 * **Encyclopedia of the Atmospheric Environment (Atmosphere, Climate and Environment Information Programme, UK)**[|Introduction to weather] and [|Introduction to climate]

[|Temperature] Explains how thermometers measure temperature, and the difference between the three temperature scales – Celsius, Fahrenheit and Kelvin. [|Wind] A brief explanation of wind. //**Background:** Winds are driven by the heat from the sun, which warms the air and causes it to rise. This occurs mainly in the tropics where the sun is nearly directly overhead in the middle of the day. Where the air rises, cool air must flow in to take its place, and this is felt as a wind on the Earth's surface. Because of the rotation of the Earth, winds move in complicated patterns, In northern Australia the winds blow mostly from the east, while in southern Australia they blow mostly from the west. On top of this general circulation pattern we find other winds associated with tropical cyclones in northern Australia or with cold fronts in the south. All winds blow in circles. The major circulation patterns of easterly winds (in the north) or westerly winds (in the south) blow right around the Earth, carrying weather patterns with them.//

[|Pressure] Explains atmospheric pressure, how it is measured and that air moves from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. //**Background:** Patterns of pressure are important because they are closely related to wind and rain – the most noticeable features of weather. Regions of high pressure tend to be associated with fine weather and regions of low pressure with clouds and rain. Regions of very low pressure in the north of Australia may become tropical cyclones.// ||

Outlines Australia's climate zones, compares them with other parts of the world and gives maximum and minimum temperatures and rainfall for the major cities. Maps and charts make the information more accessible. ||
 * **Bureau of Meteorology (Australia)**[|Australia – climate of our continent]

//**When you've mastered the basics, try these sites:**//|| **Bureau of Meteorology (Australia)**[|The weather map] Explains how weather maps are prepared. Includes typical summer and winter weather maps for Australia. //**Background:** Weather maps show pressure patterns in the atmosphere. They are derived from measurements made each day by hundreds of observers around Australia. The lines drawn on the maps connect places with equal pressure and are called isobars.// [|Interpreting weather satellite images] Presents several weather satellite images and explains what some characteristic patterns mean. //**Background:** Weather satellites now let us look down on the Earth and photograph the patterns of clouds. These satellites are in orbit about 20,000 kilometres above the Earth's surface at the equator, at which height they take exactly 24 hours to make one orbit and so remain above the same point on the Earth's surface. The view from such a satellite covers almost half the entire Earth. A Japanese meteorological satellite positioned above the equator just north of Australia provides cloud pictures for the Australian region.// ||


 * **[|The causes of climatic change] (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK)**An information sheet covering a number of factors that can contribute to climate variability. Includes graphs showing how the Pinatubo eruption and El Niño have affected mean monthly temperatures. ||

[|Weather basics] Explains that storms form as the result of an extreme difference in air pressure, driven by the movement of cold and warm air. [|Satellite imagery] Explains the different kinds of images produced by satellite instruments – visible images, infrared images and water vapour images. [|Atmospheric models] Explains how surf forecasters use models to predict storm formation. ||  ||
 * **[|Stormsurf] (USA)**Check out this site to see how weather information can be used. It presents storm and weather data for surfers, and you can even create your own surf forecast. Images accompany the text.

External sites are not endorsed by the Australian Academy of Science. [ [|Home] | [|Contacts] | [|Search] | [|Index] ] [|©] Australian Academy of Science | aas@science.org.au || ses and products.