DOCSLIB.ORG

Distorting the Process of Scientific Inquiry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distorting the Process of Scientific Inquiry University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Biological Sciences Faculty Publications Biological Sciences 8-2012 Distorting the Process of Scientific Inquiry Richard L. Hutto University of Montana - Missoula, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs Part of the Biology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hutto, Richard L., "Distorting the Process of Scientific Inquiry" (2012). Biological Sciences Faculty Publications. 265. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs/265 This Editorial is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Viewpoint Distorting the Process of Scientific Inquiry RICHARD L. HUTTO here is beauty in the scientific Standards are expected to emerge are explanations; statistical hypotheses Tmethod, but that beauty can from the Framework for K–12 Science are not. Research hypotheses can be become distorted if parts of the pro- Education (National Research Council considered guesses, but those guesses cess are misrepresented, misplaced, or 2012). are still explanations of a pattern; they missing altogether. Unfortunately, such The general nature of the scientific are not, as is frequently taught, guesses distortion is becoming more common. method is well described. Even its about the outcome of an experiment. Specifically, students and practicing Wikipedia entry nicely summarizes Another source of ­confusion involves scientists alike are dwelling excessively that scientists “propose hypotheses the use of the word prediction. Pre- on statistical hypothesis testing at the as explanations of phenomena and dictions are not guesses about which expense of research hypothesis testing. design experimental studies to test hypothesis is the most likely explana- Many are even using the word pre- these hypotheses via predictions which tion, nor are they guesses about the diction in association with statistical can be derived from them” (http://en. outcome of an experiment; they are hypothesis testing, where it does not wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). logical consequences that follow neces- belong. Consequently, these distor- The process of scientific inquiry is sarily from a stated research hypothesis, tions are converting a process designed a logical procedure that involves the and they can be observational, com- to help explain natural phenomena following four steps: (1) Find some- parative, or experimental in nature. through the use of strong inference thing interesting to talk about by Simply put, if a prediction is not part (sensu Platt 1964) into a process that using statistical hypothesis testing to of an if–then series, it does not belong. is little more than an empty exercise in expose an observation or pattern that Just to illustrate that distortion of fact finding. is unlikely to have arisen from chance the scientific method occurs at an The reasons for an emergence alone; (2) suggest alternative explana- early age among students, consider the of such distortions in the scientific tions (research hypotheses) for why nature of most science-fair projects. method are unclear, but there are at the nonrandom pattern exists; (3) use They represent independent work, but least two issues that are likely to have if–then logic to generate a series of relatively few projects can be classified played a role. First, there has been a predictions that follow logically and as science, because most do not involve concerted effort to downplay the lin- necessarily from each hypothesis; and the last three steps outlined above. ear, stepwise nature of the scientific (4) distinguish among the alternatives Most science-fair participants provide method (National Research Council by testing the predictions that were a purpose or stated question (e.g., Can 2011). Indeed, a clear outline of the generated in step 3. I build a bridge? Can a hovercraft lift steps involved in the process of scien- So how has such a simple process extra weight? How many licks will it tific inquiry is surprisingly difficult to become distorted? It is an unfortunate take to get to the center of a Tootsie find these days. This change in empha- coincidence that any explanation for Roll Pop? Can I grow plants without sis may have left people comfortable a phenomenon is called a hypothesis, soil?), but these questions alone are practicing only the initial fact-finding which is precisely the same word one not at all suited to scientific inquiry, step and then passing that off as sci- uses to label alternative outcomes (the because they do not represent attempts ence. Second, similarities in the termi- null and alternative hypotheses) in to explain anything. Actual “hypothe- nology associated with statistical and a statistical test. To avoid the risk ses” that I observed in association with research hypothesis testing has not of confusing the process involved in these questions (e.g., respectively, I bet only caused confusion but has misled scientific inquiry, potential explana- I can; a hovercraft should be able to lift people into thinking that statistical tions for nonrandom patterns should 400 pounds off the ground; it should hypothesis testing is the same thing be termed research hypotheses so that take 277 licks; I should be able to) as research hypothesis testing. As long they are labeled as something dis- and the associated “predictions” (most as the words hypothesis and prediction tinct from statistical hypotheses. Unlike often restatements of the hypotheses) are used, people think they are doing statistical hypotheses, which usually are nonsense and are a clear indica- science! It would be timely to remind consist of two alternatives (random or tion that something is wrong with ourselves how the method of scientific not), there is no limit to the number the participants’ understanding of the inquiry actually works (Karsai and of research hypotheses that a person scientific method. Kampis 2010), because sometime in might generate to explain a pattern. Fortunately, many other science-fair 2012, the new Next Generation Science More important, research hypotheses participants provide a stated purpose www.biosciencemag.org August 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 8 • BioScience 707 Viewpoint or question that fits well into step 1 what should be an elegant, overarching will help limit those that have become (e.g., Does music type affect one’s method. Neither research hypotheses embarrassingly widespread. The con- blood pressure? Will lodgepole pine nor predictions are associated with sequences of our failure to clarify and benefit from fire? Do girls have bet- step 1 (the observation step). One does simplify the process of science for ter memory than boys? Which dis- not guess—“hypothesize” or “predict” students are profound. Not only are infectant kills the most bacteria? Does in the lingo of those who abuse the we driving children away from science age affect color perception?), but the terms—what the answer to a statistical through our failure to describe scien- participants then introduce “hypo- test might be. tific inquiry as a simple yet creative theses” where they do not belong (e.g., Students today have been led to process, but we are also graduating respectively, classical music will lower believe that statistical hypothesis test- students who have never experienced and rock will increase blood pres- ing constitutes the entire process of or fully understood science as a way of sure; fire helps lodgepole pine; girls science, because they have (inappro- seeking knowledge. will do better than boys; I bet Clorox priately) inserted the words hypothesis will kill the most; yes, it will). Because and prediction into the exploration Acknowledgments of this, the “hypothesis” becomes no phase (step 1) of the scientific method. I appreciate the comments, construc- more than a guess at the answer to the If fact finding (statistical hypothesis tive criticism, and encouragement yes–no question that the student posed testing) alone is considered “science,” offered by Fletcher Brown, Ken Dial, as the purpose of the project, which is the mere act of seeking an answer to Jared Diamond, Aaron Flesch, Anne really no more than a step-1 attempt a question would constitute science- Greene, Doug Johnson, Paul Kraus- to expose a nonrandom pattern. These based learning. Fact finding based on man, Winsor Lowe, Tom Martin, Mike “hypo theses” are not step-3 explana- statistical hypothesis testing is a part of Morrison, Helen Quinn, and each of tions for something that has already science but is only a part of the four- the 50 students in Biology 470 at the been established as a fact or pattern in step process outlined above. University of Montana who read an step 1. For too long, students have been There may not be “one distinctive earlier draft of this essay. told that a hypothesis is nothing more approach common to all science—a than what they think will happen. This single ‘scientific method’” (National References cited represents a confusion of explanations Research Council 2011, p. 3-2), but Karsai I, Kampis G. 2010. The crossroads (research hypotheses) with predictions we cannot ignore the stepwise nature between biology and mathematics: The scientific method as the basics of scientific that logically follow from any given of the process by testing “predictions” literacy. BioScience 60: 632–638. explanation. Predictions are not gut that do not emerge from a research National Research Council. 2012. A Framework feelings about the outcome of a test; hypothesis or by testing “hypotheses” for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. they are logical consequences that must that were not erected to explain some- National Academies Press. be true if the hypothesis is true. thing and still call that “science.” The Platt JR.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Inquiry Research Project1
    The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Inquiry Research Project1 The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. – Marcel Proust A huge part of Philosophical Inquiry is learning how to see the world with new eyes. To accomplish this goal, you will be introduced to the “ten lenses of philosophical inquiry.” The ten lenses of philosophical inquiry are tools to help us critically engage with, and analyze ourselves, and the world around us. Like a pair of glasses, the ten lenses help to change our perception and give us the power to re-examine our reality. In this philosophical inquiry research project you will get introduced to each of the ten lenses so that you become comfortable using the lenses both inside and out of our class. You will also learn more about a philosopher, their philosophy and the lens of philosophical inquiry that they are most clearly connected to. Focus Question What are the ten lenses of philosophical inquiry, and what are some examples of how they are connected to the philosophies of different philosopher’s throughout history? Philosophical Inquiry Research Process 1) QUESTION - Develop the philosophical questions that you will use to drive your inquiry. 2) PLAN – Determine the types of sources that you will need to answer your questions. 3) GATHER EVIDENCE – Gather the information (textual, visual, quantitative, etc.) you need to explore and answer your questions. 4) ANALYZE – Analyze the answers to your questions, making sure to keep in mind the larger focus question guiding this inquiry. 5) COMMUNICATE CONCLUSIONS – Use evidence and reasons to write an organized (logically sequenced) explanation to the inquiry’s topic/focus question.
    [Show full text]
  • A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2019 A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry Karina Bucciarelli Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses Part of the Epistemology Commons, Feminist Philosophy Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Bucciarelli, Karina, "A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry" (2019). Scripps Senior Theses. 1365. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1365 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PREVENTING KNOWLEDGE DISTORTIONS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY by KARINA MARTINS BUCCIARELLI SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS PROFESSOR SUSAN CASTAGNETTO PROFESSOR RIMA BASU APRIL 26, 2019 Bucciarelli 2 Acknowledgements First off, I would like to thank my wonderful family for supporting me every step of the way. Mamãe e Papai, obrigada pelo amor e carinho, mil telefonemas, conversas e risadas. Obrigada por não só proporcionar essa educação incrível, mas também me dar um exemplo de como viver. Rafa, thanks for the jokes, the editing help and the spontaneous phone calls. Bela, thank you for the endless time you give to me, for your patience and for your support (even through WhatsApp audios). To my dear friends, thank you for the late study nights, the wild dance parties, the laughs and the endless support.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Scientific Inquiry
    Chapter 2 PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY Introduction This chapter provides a summary of the principles of scientific inquiry. The purpose is to explain terminology, and introduce concepts, which are explained more completely in later chapters. Much of the content has been based on explanations and examples given by Wilson (1). The Scientific Method Although most of us have heard, at some time in our careers, that research must be carried out according to “the scientific method”, there is no single, scientific method. The term is usually used to mean a systematic approach to solving a problem in science. Three types of investigation, or method, can be recognized: · The Observational Method · The Experimental (and quasi-experimental) Methods, and · The Survey Method. The observational method is most common in the natural sciences, especially in fields such as biology, geology and environmental science. It involves recording observations according to a plan, which prescribes what information to collect, where it should be sought, and how it should be recorded. In the observational method, the researcher does not control any of the variables. In fact, it is important that the research be carried out in such a manner that the investigations do not change the behaviour of what is being observed. Errors introduced as a result of observing a phenomenon are known as systematic errors because they apply to all observations. Once a valid statistical sample (see Chapter Four) of observations has been recorded, the researcher analyzes and interprets the data, and develops a theory or hypothesis, which explains the observations. The experimental method begins with a hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiential & Inquiry-Based Learning with Youth in Non-Formal Settings
    Working with youth in non-formal settings ensuring rich enrichment Experiential & Inquiry-based Learning with Youth in Non-formal Settings 4-H Science learning for youth can be deepened by building inquiry-based learning methods into programs and curricula. For over two decades of educational reform, science education has focused on inquiry as a method for learning and doing natural science in formal classrooms. When used to make sense of the natural world from within the discipline of science, inquiry-based learning is ‘scientific inquiry. ’ Non-formal program designers and practitioners are faced with decisions about which scientific inquiry methods to transfer from the formal classroom to the non-formal setting, which methods to adapt to better fit the non-formal learning needs of youth, and how to best prepare adults to facilitate scientific inquiry with youth. Why is this thinking important to 4-H staff and volunteers? Evaluation results indicate that inquiry-based methods support youth in Key Concepts their learning. Minner et al (2010) reviewed 138 evaluation studies and found that inquiry-based approaches in the science, engineering, technology ,and math Experiential learning: content areas had the largest effect sizes, or made the greatest positive Constructing learning through hands-on experiences that are difference, when there was an emphasis on active learning and involvement in highly social in nature. the investigative process (asking questions, designing investigations, collecting data, drawing conclusions, communicating findings). Hands-on experiences with Inquiry-based learning: Constructing learning through natural phenomena were also found to be associated with increased conceptual hands-on experiences that provide learning in the science content investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stoics and the Practical: a Roman Reply to Aristotle
    DePaul University Via Sapientiae College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences 8-2013 The Stoics and the practical: a Roman reply to Aristotle Robin Weiss DePaul University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd Recommended Citation Weiss, Robin, "The Stoics and the practical: a Roman reply to Aristotle" (2013). College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations. 143. https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd/143 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STOICS AND THE PRACTICAL: A ROMAN REPLY TO ARISTOTLE A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August, 2013 BY Robin Weiss Department of Philosophy College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences DePaul University Chicago, IL - TABLE OF CONTENTS - Introduction……………………..............................................................................................................p.i Chapter One: Practical Knowledge and its Others Technê and Natural Philosophy…………………………….....……..……………………………….....p. 1 Virtue and technical expertise conflated – subsequently distinguished in Plato – ethical knowledge contrasted with that of nature in
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Hume's Problem of Induction 1748 - Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
    1740 - Treatise of Human Nature Notes on Hume's Problem of Induction 1748 - Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding Recall: Subject of confirmation = How scientific claims are justified. This assumes that they are capable of justification in the first place. Hume asks: Is there a rational basis for inductive inferences? Hume response: No! Consequence: To the extent that scientific claims are based on inductive inferences, they cannot be justified. Example: All observed ravens are black. Hume asks, Can we ever be justified in believing the conclusion? All ravens are black. Two types of objects of knowledge, according to Hume (I) Relations of ideas = Products of deductive (truth-preserving) Ex: 2 + 2 = 4 inferences; negation entails a contradiction. (II) Matters of fact = Products of inductive inferences; negation does Ex: All ravens are black. not entail a contradiction. Outline of Hume's Argument (1) Matters of fact can only be known through experience ("a posteriori"). (2) Therefore matters of fact can only be justified by recourse to experience. (3) But any attempt to do so is circular. ∴ There is no justification for inductive inferences. ASIDE 1. Hume is not just saying that we can never be certain about inductive inferences (i.e., we can never be 100% certain that all ravens are black). This would be uncontentious: Most people would agree that there's always room for error in making an inductive inference. However, most people would at the same time claim that we are justified in making (some) inductive inferences, even though they aren't 100% guaranteed to work (i.e., we think there are standards by which we can judge good inductive inferences from bad ones).
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]
  • Turns in the Evolution of the Problem of Induction*
    CARL G. HEMPEL TURNS IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION* 1. THE STANDARD CONCEPTION: INDUCTIVE "INFERENCE" Since the days of Hume's skeptical doubt, philosophical conceptions of the problem of induction and of ways in which it might be properly solved or dissolved have undergone a series of striking metamor- phoses. In my paper, I propose to examine some of those turnings, which seem to me to raise particularly important questions about the nature of empirical knowledge and especially scientific knowledge. Many, but by no means all, of the statements asserted by empirical science at a given time are accepted on the basis of previously established evidence sentences. Hume's skeptical doubt reflects the realization that most of those indirectly, or inferentially, accepted assertions rest on evidence that gives them no complete, no logically conclusive, support. This is, of course, the point of Hume's obser- vation that even if we have examined many occurrences of A and have found them all to be accompanied by B, it is quite conceivable, or logically possible, that some future occurrence of A might not be accompanied by B. Nor, we might add, does our evidence guarantee that past or present occurrences of A that we have not observed were- or are- accompanied by B, let alone that all occurrences ever of A are, without exception, accompanied by B. Yet, in our everyday pursuits as well as in scientific research we constantly rely on what I will call the method of inductive ac- ceptance, or MIA for short: we adopt beliefs, or expectations, about empirical matters on logically incomplete evidence, and we even base our actions on such beliefs- to the point of staking our lives on some of them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inquiry Wheel, an Alternative to the Scientific Method. a View of The
    Chemical Education Today Reports from Other Journals The Inquiry Wheel, an Alternative to the Scientific Method A View of the Science Education Research Literature by William R. Robinson For many years I have felt that the scientific method as entific inquiry emerged and led to the description of the presented in many textbooks was not how my colleagues in inquiry wheel illustrated in Figure 1 and discussed below. chemistry did research. Even so, when I wrote a general However, before we look at the inquiry wheel, I think chemistry text I was told to put in a description of the sci- it worth noting that the majority of the scientists interviewed entific method because it was expected. Now, Reiff, (38 of 52) identified the most important aspect of an in- Harwood, and Phillipson have developed a more satisfac- vestigation as being literature based. To them a worthwhile tory model of scientific inquiry, the inquiry wheel, based on investigation was one that crossed the boundary from the information gathered from practicing scientists. This model known to the unknown and a knowledge of the literature is described in their paper “A Scientific Method Based upon is important in identifying that boundary. Research Scientists’ Conceptions of Scientific Inquiry” (1) based on interview data described in “Scientists’ Concep- Stages of Scientific Inquiry tions of Scientific Inquiry: Voices from the Front” (2). As a result of their interviews (2), the investigators de- The informants in this research were 52 science faculty scribe the process used by scientists as they pursue research members in nine science departments (anthropology, biol- as a wheel with questions at the hub and various stages of ogy, chemistry, geography, geology, medical sciences, physics, the inquiry in a circular arrangement around the hub (1).
    [Show full text]
  • SCIENTIFIC METHOD NOTES Modern Scientific Inquiry Or Science
    SCIENTIFIC METHOD NOTES Modern scientific inquiry or science (from scientia , Latin for knowledge) is generally attributed to the historical contributions of Galileo Galilei and Roger Bacon. However, some historians believe that their practices were inspired by earlier Islamic tradition. In spite of the rich human tradition of scientific inquiry, today there is no single or universal method of performing science. According to the National Science Teachers Association, science is “characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation.” Although this definition is helpful in explaining the process of science, it does not specify a list of experimental steps that one should logically progress through to perform an experiment. (An experiment can be defined as an organized series of steps used to test a probable solution to a problem, commonly called a hypothesis.) Despite the absence of a standard scientific method, there is a generally agreed upon model that describes how science operates. Steps of the Scientific Method 1. State the problem: What is the problem? This is typically stated in a question format. EXAMPLE: Will taking one aspirin per day for 60 days decrease blood pressure in females ages 12-14? 2. Research the problem: The researcher will typically gather information on the problem. They may read accounts and journals on the subject, or be involved in communications with other scientists. EXAMPLE: Some people relate stories to doctors that they feel relief from high blood pressure after taking one aspirin per day.
    [Show full text]
  • Stoicism a School of Thought That Flourished in Greek and Roman
    Stoicism A school of thought that flourished in Greek and Roman antiquity. It was one of the loftiest and most sublime philosophies in the record of Western civilization. In urging participation in the affairs of man, Stoics have always believed that the goal of all inquiry is to provide man with a mode of conduct characterized by tranquillity of mind and certainty of moral worth. Nature and scope of Stoicism For the early Stoic philosopher, as for all the post-Aristotelian schools, knowledge and its pursuit are no longer held to be ends in themselves. The Hellenistic Age was a time of transition, and the Stoic philosopher was perhaps its most influential spokesman. A new culture was in the making. The heritage of an earlier period, with Athens as its intellectual leader, was to continue, but to undergo many changes. If, as with Socrates, to know is to know oneself, rationality as the sole means by which something outside of the self might be achieved may be said to be the hallmark of Stoic belief. As a Hellenistic philosophy, Stoicism presented an ars vitae, a way of accommodation for people to whom the human condition no longer appeared as the mirror of a universal, calm, and ordered existence. Reason alone could reveal the constancy of cosmic order and the originative source of unyielding value; thus, reason became the true model for human existence. To the Stoic, virtue is an inherent feature of the world, no less inexorable in relation to man than are the laws of nature. The Stoics believed that perception is the basis of true knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Four Stages of the Research (Inquiry) Process the Research (Inquiry) Process
    The Four Stages of the Research (Inquiry) Process The Research (Inquiry) Process Basically, the stage where you figure out what you're going to do! Stage 1: Exploring • What do you know already (prior knowledge)about your topic? • What keywords are related to this topic (it's okay to use wikipedia at this stage)? • After gaining some background knowledge on your topic, develop key questions that need to be answered • Narrow your ideas further to a focus question/argument and be ready to share with your teacher Create a folder for the project, inserting a copy of the assignment and noting the due date(s). Keep your brainstorming (thought webs, mind maps, etc.) definitions of key terms, rough notes, as proof of your process work. Did it on the computer? Save it to a USB, Cloud, moodle, or folder! Basically, the stage where you access the resources necessary to make it all happen! Stage 2: Investigating • confirm the key words necessary for successful searches (this is where exploring should have helped you out) to find support and sources for your focus/argument • gather a variety of print and non-print, academic, (maybe even peer reviewed) sources; remember to note citation information, incl. date accessed • use the library web site to access EBSCO, Britannica, Historica, etc. to begin academic research • fine-tune (or narrow) your focus question/argument as you investigate further During this stage you may have a conference with your teacher. Keep notes during the session and add them to your folder. Your teacher may ask to see what notes you have on sources so far.
    [Show full text]