Current Event #4 page 1
Kevin D. McMahon
Student ID#: 78513
SED 625SC
November 18, 2006
Current Event IV
A Summary, Analysis & Reflection of:
Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing
Transparency and Aesthetics Back to
Scientific Investigations
Mitchel Resnick
MIT Media Laboraory
Robbie Berg
Department of Education
Wellesley College
Michael Eisenberg
Department of Computer Science
University of Colorado
Current Event #4 page 2
In his essay, A Thing of Beauty, Arthur Miller asks, “Are beauty and science
compatible? Do scientists have the right to use the word beauty?” (Miller 2006). He
answers his question with a resounding yes and references the work and comments of
great scientists and mathematicians as evidence. The fundamental commonality between
science and beauty is symmetry, which is perceivable by the intuitive and those trained in
aesthetics. Science operates within its own aesthetical domain. As Nobel Laureate
Richard Feynman observed, “You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity”
(Augros, 1984 p.39). Physicist, Paul Dirac, suggested that aesthetics is an integral part
of scientific methodology and may be primary in the confirmation of hypotheses: “It is
more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment”
(Miller). If beauty is an essential component of science than as educators we should seek
ways to introduce aesthetics into our curriculum. The authors of Beyond Black Boxes
(Resnick, 2000) have suggested that one way to re-introduce aesthetics into the science
classroom in through allowing students to design their own scientific instruments.
The authors contend that the tradition of hand crafted scientific instruments has
long since passed and has been replaced with mass-produced equipment which are
opaque (that is their inner functionality is hidden from the user) and aesthetically
destitute. They further contend that when scientists crafted the equipment for their
investigations they had a superior understanding of their range of functionality.
Furthermore, aesthetical considerations were incorporated into the design of instruments
because of an a priori recognition that science investigation was, at least in part, about
apprehending the beautiful.
Current Event #4 page 3
The authors developed the Beyond Black Boxes (BBB) project which promotes
the use of “tiny, fully programmable computational devices, called Crickets, that students
can embed (and connect to) everyday objects” (Resnick, p. 9). The goal of the study was
to allow students to use Crickets to design their own scientific instruments and to
encourage them to incorporate aesthetics into their design. The expectation was that: (1)
students would have a better understanding of the investigative processes because of the
transparency of the instrumentation (since they designed the instrument themselves the
instrument would no longer be a mysterious “black box,” hence “Beyond Black Boxes”),
and (2) that they would be more committed to the investigative process because of their
aesthetical contribution to the instrumentation which they designed and built.
The authors cited several case studies as evidence that the BBB project met with
expectations. A young student, Jenny, who built a bird-feeder that took pictures of the
birds as they ate commented, “This was probably more interesting cause it was like you
were doing a test for something more complicated than just what happens if you add this
liquid to this powder” (Resnick, p.17). Alexandra, who built a “marble machine”
commented about her science-fair project: “I thought it would be interesting and different
from the other kids’; like from the solar system or the body. It was kind of strange but
fun” (Resnick, p.25). The authors used anecdotal comments such as these to support
their conclusions that the BBB project motivated students. They also cited cases in
which students obtained “strange or unexpected” readings from their instruments. In
these cases the students didn’t automatically assume that there was a problem with the
experimental design (the assumption of most students using Black Boxes) rather they
Current Event #4 page 4
checked to make sure their instruments were working properly (evidence of
transparency).
In qualitative research such as this it is to be expected that anecdotal results will
be cited. This article would have benefited, however, by citing more examples of student
experiences with the project. Perhaps even a table listing the students’ names, projects,
and a brief comment by the student and researchers would have made their conclusions
even more convincing. To their credit they discussed “What Didn’t Work” in the article.
It is not surprising that they recognized the inherent difficulty of open-ended activities.
Hence, they are now introducing the BBB project to students through a series of guided
activities before students are given the go-ahead with building their own instruments.
Finally, they admitted that the current Standards Based educational environment is not
particularly friendly towards programs such as the BBB project which takes considerable
time away from teacher directed instruction.
On a personal note this article reminded me of what I “used” to do as a junior
high science teacher. I had most of my classes build their own instruments such as
telescopes, astrolabs, motors, capacitors, electroscopes, and spectroscopes. This was, for
the most part, because as a kid I used to love to make my own instruments and I found
that these kids loved making them too. If it took an extra day or so to make a
seismograph it didn’t matter— back then we were not “under the gun” of Standards. I
miss those days when we had more time— time to recognize the beauty that science
could elucidate in nature. Beauty that is evident not in a preponderance of standards but
in an appreciation of truth, as Keats observed:
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty"---that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
Current Event #4 page 5
Reference:
Miller, A. (2006) A Thing of Beauty. New Scientist, Vol. 189, Issue 2537
Augros, R. & Stanciu, G. (1984) The New Story of Science. Lake Bluff, Ill. Regnery
Gateway.
Resnick, M., Berg, R. & Eisenberg, M. (2000) Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing
Transparency and Aesthetics Back to Scientific Investigation. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 9(1), 7- 30.