Alaska Science
Key Element B5

A student who meets the content standard should employ ethical standards, including unbiased data collection and factual reporting of results.

Performance Standard Level 3, Ages 11–14

Students practice factual recording of experimental results and unbiased data collection.

Sample Assessment Ideas

• Students collect data to determine whether eighth graders or seventh graders are better able to remember strings of random numbers. Discuss possible sources of bias in data interpretation. Discuss how bias influences the way the experiment was designed, conducted or interpreted.

• Students collect data on which lure is the best for Coho salmon. Discuss possible sources of bias in data interpretation. Discuss how bias influences the way the experiment was designed, conducted or interpreted.

Expanded Sample Assessment Idea

• Students measure the lung capacity of boys and girls.

Procedure

Students will:

1. Work in teams so that boys measure lung capacity of boys; boys measure lung capacity of girls; girls measure lung capacity of boys, and girls measure lung capacity of girls.

2. Measure individual lung capacity and determine the average lung capacity by sex. (“Bubbleology” texts are an excellent resource for this.)

3. Combine class data and discuss whether data collection was unbiased and factually reported. Discuss reasons for the four different types of teams.

Reflection and Revision

Recommend ways to ensure that data collection is unbiased and factually reported.

Levels of Performance

Stage 4 Student work is complete, correct and shows evidence of elaboration and extension. Student work includes methods to ensure unbiased data collection and factual reporting of data.

Standards Cross-References
( Alaska Department of Education & Early Development Standards)

National Science Education Standards

Scientific explanations emphasize evidence, have logically consistent arguments, and use scientific principles, models, and theories. The scientific community accepts and uses such explanations until displaced by better scientific ones. When such displacement occurs, science advances. (Page 148)

Science advances through legitimate skepticism. Asking questions and querying other scientists’ explanations is part of scientific inquiry. Scientists evaluate the explanations proposed by other scientists by examining evidence, comparing evidence, identifying faulty reasoning, pointing out statements that go beyond the evidence, and suggesting alternative explanations for the same observations. (Page 148)

Benchmarks

What people expect to observe often affects what they actually do observe. Strong beliefs about what should happen in particular circumstances can prevent them from detecting other results. Scientists know about this danger to objectivity and take steps to try and avoid it when designing investigations and examining data. One safeguard is to have different investigators conduct independent studies of the same questions. (Page 12)

In research involving human subjects, the ethics of science require that potential subjects be fully informed about the risks and benefits associated with the research and of their right to refuse to participate. Science ethics also demand that scientists must not knowingly subject coworkers, students, the neighborhood, or the community to health or property risks without their prior knowledge and consent. Because animals cannot make informed choices, special care must be taken in using them in scientific research. (Page 17)

Know why it is important in science to keep honest, clear, and accurate records. (Page 287)

Question claims based on vague attributions (such as “Leading doctors say . . . ”) or on statements made by celebrities or others outside the area of their particular expertise. (Page 299)

Be skeptical of arguments based on very small samples of data, biased samples, or samples for which there was no control sample. (Page 299)

Be aware that there may be more than one good way to interpret a given set of findings. (Page 299)

Notice and criticize the reasoning in arguments in which (1) fact and opinion are intermingled or the conclusions do not follow logically from the evidence given, (2) an analogy is not apt, (3) no mention is made of whether the control groups are very much like the experimental group, or (4) all members of a group (such as teenagers or chemists) are implied to have nearly identical characteristics that differ from those of other groups. (Page 299)