Phase 2: Emulation

Erin E. Peters

February 26, 2006

Nature of Science Concept	Essential Metacognitive Processes Checklist
Scientific knowledge is durable, yet tentative	€ I know how scientists throughout history thought about this idea. € I can see how this idea has changed when scientists got more information about it. € I know that ideas in science change scientists agree the old idea doesn’t fit with new information that is reliable. € I know that scientists are strict about how they get information, so ideas in science are long-lasting.
Empirical evidence is used to support ideas in science	€ My observations describe what I see, hear or feel. € My observations are made up of measurements that other people can agree upon. For example, instead of saying “It is big”, I say “The blue car is 20 cm long” € My observations are clear to other people who are not performing this lab. € My observations come only from my five senses, and are not inferences. € My observations can be used later to make conclusions. € My observations are not judgments about what I see, hear or feel.
Social and historical factors play a role in the construction of scientific knowledge	€ I used information discussed in the introduction of the lab to help me make sense of my results. € I listened to other group members when they suggested different ideas. € I used information from my class notes or book when I was making conclusions. € I realize that scientists in the 18^th and 19^th centuries did not have the same equipment as I do. € Each member of my group contributed to the learning during this lab. That is, no one dominated the lab or the equipment.
Laws and theories play a central role in developing scientific knowledge, yet they have different functions	€ I made a conclusion by looking for something similar about the results in the lab. € My conclusions describe a big idea that can be backed up by my results. € I thought about what I already knew about the topic before I gathered data. € My observations are examples of what I am saying in my conclusion. € I thought about what scientists understand about this topic after I made my conclusion.
Accurate record keeping, peer review and replication of experiments help to validate scientific ideas	€ I would be able to understand my data table weeks or months from now. € I paid attention to all possible observations. € I didn’t intentionally ignore any observations because they didn’t support my hypothesis. € My data is organized to show my point of my conclusion. € I thought about different ways to organize my data and decided on the one that best emphasizes my conclusion.
Science is a creative endeavor	€ When I was doing this lab, I thought about times when I saw something similar to my results. € I looked for patterns in my results as I gathered data. € I thought about many different conclusions that my results could explain and chose the one that made the most sense to me. € The conclusion I chose makes sense compared to other experiences I have had.
Science and technology are not the same, but they impact each other	€ I made measurements that are based on a standard system like the metric system. € I thought how I could use the measurement tools most accurately in this lab. € I didn’t use measurements that were based on non-standards, like my hand or height. € I thought about many different tools that could have been used in this lab and chose the most useful one. € I thought about how my measuring tool can interrupt what I am trying to measure. € I thought about how people in history had different tools to measure and how these different tools could produce different results compared to my results.