STAT - Tasmanian Science Talent Search - 2009 Judges Comments

For several years now we have been publishing Judges’ Comments on the web to help teachers and students build on past experiences, rather than learn from scratch again each year.

Please re-read the Judges’ Comments from 2008 and earlier years, as well as the section in the handbook on the web. I will add simply a few extra remarks here.

TSTS exists to encourage and reward students and teachers in all the sections offered, but particularly in the Research Investigations section. Though not theoretically “Pure Research”, this section encourages Inquiry-based, student-directed investigations, to reinforce the nature of science, and the work of a scientist. Topics may be re-visited over several years, building on previous results, changing the emphasis slightly to question further, without having to “re-invent” the initial methodology, and therefore it is possible to lift the standard to another level of sophistication. This is particularly relevant in schools which have a particular interest e.g.. a local environmental problem or asset (freshwater crayfish, green and gold frogs, local creek or mining industry etc). Effort and lateral thinking are essential to develop an in-depth project which shows full consideration of controlling variables, and obtaining a range of meaningful results. We do consider how MUCH experimental work the student has done (with one-lesson practs not considered as favourably), but it is a pity when students spend many hours on an experiment which has basic flaws which could’ve been prevented by careful planning beforehand.

Teachers who have been involved with TSTS Research Investigations for several years, often keep a collection of past project reports in the library, which students can scan through when planning their experiments. Students may find the planning stage frustrating, and often just want to “get on with it”, and only afterwards realize they “should’ve done…”, “if only we had thought of doing…”, “we didn’t think that would affect our results…”. They rarely then have time to re-do their experiment, in the light of what they’ve worked out, nor are they usually keen to re-write their reports. However, in reading past year’s students’ reports, they are often super-critical…”I can’t understand what they’ve done from their Method”…”but they haven’t considered some variables such as..”, “why didn’t they measure….”, “if only they’d thought to …”. Hopefully that will help them consider such factors before THEY start too!

Scientists rarely work alone. They usually read articles written by other scientists, then build on that work to develop one facet further. So it is fine for students to ask for assistance from teachers, scientists, people in industry etc, as long as it is acknowledged. Get them to check their method with someone working in a similar field (Scientists in Schools Program may be helpful here if you get organized early enough). Teachers would always offer help to a student who asks for assistance in normal class-work, and doing an inquiry investigation is no different. Guided mentoring is fine. That is the way you “teach” inquiry. “What other factors might be affecting your result?”, “Try Googling X and think whether you should consider that”, “Do you think it matters if Y is different from last time you did it?”…

Plan to introduce this project work early in the year, as TIME is one of the vital elements for developing a good investigation. Then the limited class-time available can be best used to reap maximal results. Good planning with students, Lab Technicians and teachers is essential to retain everyone’s sanity, and prevent time wastage. Read, discuss, brainstorm, and question: all BEFORE you start experimenting. What exactly are you wishing to investigate? What variables do you need to control? Pinpoint the problem to be investigated to focus your efforts and reading and this will help develop the Discussion substantially. Give lead-in time in the weeks BEFORE starting the experimenting sessions, to sort out method etc. The CSIRO CREST materials may well help students clarify the hypothesis to be tested and variables to be controlled (see link on our website)

Physics and Chemistry topics are easier to produce accurate quantifiable results. Biology/environmental science topics usually reflect the considerable natural variation of living things, so it is even more essential to test many individuals. Psychology and human physiology testing are popular, but extremely difficult to keep well-controlled. There are so many variables in humans: age, gender, lifestyle, past experiences etc. Limit the variables for greater validity.

Experiments must be repeated many times to increase validity. If deemed appropriate, the extreme scores (largest and/or smallest) can be eliminated if doing statistical analysis, though possible explanations should be included in the discussion. DON’T only include graphs or averages: all raw data (measurements) should be tabulated and included (as an Appendix, if of considerable length) to show the amount of variation, and hence accuracy of your measuring. If doing titrations, students should get 3 reasonably similar titres. If one is substantially different, they should do a 4^th, so that they have 3 fairly similar ones to average. Remember units and headings in result tables! The reader (judge) cannot be expected to be a mind-reader! Don’t fall for the trap of using every form of graph that Excel will generate. Don’t graph ALL data: only averages.

Senior students should be able to tackle some statistical analysis, such as % errors, and max-min bars on the line graphs.

Final reports should be done on A4 white paper, not with a patterned background This might look “cool” but can be distracting, and hinders easy reading. Photos and diagrams (all suitably labelled) can make your report much easier to follow, and can often show factors in results which are difficult to measure (e.g.. Colour/health of plants under different conditions).

Get someone to proof read the report. Incomplete sentences or poor spelling immediately detract from the standard of the work. “Wot a pitty it can be!”

For Senior students, it isn’t really good enough to simply list a Bibliography at the end. Specific points made should be referenced directly. Relevant ‘Background Information’ can be very helpful in tying the experimental work to the underlying theory, but should be suitably referenced.

So now do you feel better equipped to have another go? Remember, it mightn’t seem like ground-breaking research to you, but to the students it is. Tap into this enthusiasm and keep smiling!

Good luck.

As they say: “The harder you work, the luckier you get!” But if you can’t work harder, work smarter. (start by reading the Judges Comments!)

Margaret Hosford
Director TSTS