Scientific Method

Scientific Method Answer Key

Bikini Bottom Experiments

(1) Flower Power

SpongeBob loves to garden and wants to grow lots of pink flowers for his pal Sandy. He bought a

special Flower Power fertilizer to see if will help plants produce more flowers. He plants two plants of

the same size in separate containers with the same amount of potting soil. He places one plant in a sunny

window and waters it every day with fertilized water. He places the other plant on a shelf in a closet and

waters it with plain water every other day.

What did SpongeBob do wrong in this experiment? Explain.

SpongeBob did not provide both plants with the same amount of water and sunshine. In order to test the

fertilizer correctly, both plants should have been placed in the sunny window and watered every day with

the same amount of water. The only difference between the two plants should have been the fertilizer -

one plant would be watered with the water with fertilizer and the other would be watered with plain

water.

(What should SpongeBob do to test the effectiveness of Flower Power fertilizer? Write an experiment.

Answers will vary. Experiments should address the problems in SpongeBob's experiment.

(2) Super Snails

Gary is not the smartest snail in Bikini Bottom and believes he can improve his brain power by

eating Super Snail Snacks. In order to test his hypothesis, he recruits SpongeBob and several snail friends

to help him with the experiment. The snails ate one snack with each meal every day for three weeks.

SpongeBob created a test and gave it to the snails before they started eating the snacks as well as after

three weeks. Analyze the data in the chart and determine whether or not the Super Snail Snacks created

smarter snails!

Based on the data provided, do the Super Snail Snacks work? Explain your answer.

The Super Snail Snacks appear to have worked for Gary and Barry. Both of them increased their test

results after eating the snacks for three weeks. Larry did not show any improvement and Terry scored

lower on his second test. However, it is difficult to determine if the Super Snail Snacks are an effective

way to increase a snail's brain power based on this experiment alone as all the snails ate the snacks (no

control group). The gains shown by Gary and Barry may have been due to the Super Snail Snacks, but

further testing would be needed to make sure the results were not due to other factors.

(3) Bubble Time

Patrick loves bubble gum and would like to be able to blow bigger bubbles than anyone else in

Bikini Bottom. To prepare for the Bikini Bottom Big Bubble Contest, he bought five different brands of

bubble gum and needs your help to find the brand that creates the biggest bubbles. Write an experiment

to test the bubble power of the bubble gum brands and help Patrick win the contest.

Answers will vary. Students should make sure to perform the same test with each brand in order to obtain

reliable results. Repeated trials would generate more data to analyze and help Patrick pick the best

bubble gum brand for the bubble blowing contest.

Extension Idea: Provide an opportunity for the students to try their bubble gum tests!

1 - Patty Power

Which people are in the control group? Group B

What is the independent variable? New sauce

What is the dependent variable? Amount of gas

What should Mr. Krabs' conclusion be? The new sauce appears to work as it reduced the amount of gas

produced in 60% of the people tested.

Why do you think 10 people in group B reported feeling better? They thought they were getting the new sauce as

a result thought that they didn't have as much gas. (Placebo effect)

2 -- Slimotosis

What was the initial observation? Slimotosis on Gary's shell

What is the independent variable? Cures (Seaweed and Dr. Kelp)

What is the dependent variable? Slime and odor

What should Sponge Bob's conclusion be? Although Gary's symptoms have disappeared, it is not known which

cure was the one that worked. He should redo the experiment and include a control group as well as two other

testing groups for each of the proposed cures.

3 -- Marshmallow Muscles

Which person is in the control group? SpongeBob

What is the independent variable? Muscle cream

What is the dependent variable? Amount of marshmallows lifted (strength)

What should Larry's conclusion be? Since both Patrick and SpongeBob improved their results by the end of two

weeks, it does not appear that the claims for the special muscle cream are true. If the claims were correct, we

should have seen Patrick's amount double, but not SpongeBob's amount. The improvements were likely a result

of Larry's special workout.

4 -- Microwave Miracle

What was Patrick's hypothesis? He hypothesized that feeding fish microwaved food would make them become

smarter.

Which fish are in the control group? The fish that eat regular food

What is the independent variable? Microwaved food

What is the dependent variable? Time required to complete the maze

Look at the results in the charts. What should Patrick's conclusion be? According to the data, all but two fish in

each group decreased their time through the maze. The special food does not appear to be a big factor in

helping fish become smarter.

Note: Of the fish that did improve their times, the fish that were fed the special food averaged a 9.625 seconds

decrease in their times compared to an average decrease of 6.625 seconds in the fish group that received the

regular food. This does show a slight improvement for the microwaved food group, but not enough to prove that

his hypothesis was correct. More testing would need to be done

Krusty Krab Breath Mints

1. Which people are in the control group? The people who received the mint without the secret ingredient

(Group B) would be the control group.

2. What is the independent variable? Secret ingredient in the breath mint

3. What is the dependent variable? Amount of breath odor (or bad breath)

4. What should Mr. Krabs' conclusion be? The breath mint with the secret ingredient appears to reduce the

amount of breath odor more than half the time, but it is not 100% effective.

5. Why do you think 10 people in group B reported fresher breath? This may be due to the placebo effect.

Sponge Bob Clean Pants

6. What was the problem? SpongeBob's pants were not clean.

7. What is the independent variable? Laundry soap

8. What is the dependent variable? Amount of dirt left on the pants (or how clean the pants were)

9. What should Sponge Bob's conclusion be? Clean-O laundry soap does not appear to be effective in cleaning

his pants.

Squidward's Symphony

10. What is the independent variable? Instrument

11. What is the dependent variable? Number of jellyfish

12. What should Squidward's conclusion be? The clarinet did seem to attract a large number of jellyfish, but

the average number for the three trials also matched the average for the guitar. The flute attracted the least

number of jellyfish, but the average for this category is still larger than the control. Music seems to attract

jellyfish in greater numbers than when no music is played. Squidward's hypothesis that the clarinet attracts

larger numbers of jellyfish than other instruments is not proven by this experiment alone.

13. Are the results reliable? Based on the limited amount of information provided, it is difficult to tell if

Squidward's results are reliable. The description did not tell how long each break was between trials. Did he

leave enough time for the jellyfish to "clear out" of the area? (NOTE: Accept other potential flaws that

students can support.)

Super Bubbles

14. What did the Super Bubble ads claim? The ads claimed that the Super Bubble solution would produce

bubbles that were twice as large as those made with regular bubble soap.

15. What is the independent variable? Type of bubble solution

16. What is the dependent variable? Size (diameter) of the bubble

17. a. Calculate the average diameter for each. Super Bubble = 15.1 cm Regular Soap = 11.5 cm

b. What should their conclusion be? The Super Bubble solution did not seem to produce bubbles that were

twice as large as those made with the regular soap. Although the average size for the Super Bubble

solution was larger than the average size for the regular soap, it was not "twice as large" as the ads

claimed. In fact, only two of the ten trials had results that would fit the ads claims.

18. Are the results reliable? Why or why not? The description does not say who blew the bubbles for each

solution. There may be differences in bubble sizes due to the person blowing the bubble rather than the bubble

solution. They might have considered having each person blow 5 bubbles with each solution. (NOTE: Accept

other potential flaws that students can support.)

The independent variable.

• Open in Google Docs Viewer
• Open link in new tab
• Open link in new window
• Open link in new incognito window
• Download file
• Copy link address
• Edit PDF File on PDFescape.com

1. Formulate a Question

   • The first requirement of the scientific method is that a scientist explore and observe the world around him and formulate a question that he wants to answer by conducting a science experiment. Because the scientific method takes quite a bit of time, scientists should choose questions that interests them so that they don't become bored of the experiment they are conducting. You should also strive to ask a question that hasn't been asked before or that hasn't been answered fully.

   Develop a Hypothesis

   • The second essential tenet of the scientific method is to develop your hypothesis. The hypothesis is a statement in which the scientist defines what she thinks is going to happen during the experiment. For example, if a scientist is conducting an experiment on whether or not a plant will grow and live without water, her hypothesis might be: "If I don't water these plants, then the plants will not live." Remember that a hypothesis does not have to be correct. It is simply an educated guess.

     Sponsored Links

     • Scholarship University UKapply.worlddegrees.com/scholarship

       Study at Your Own Comfort. Visit Us Online & Request Info.

   Design an Experiment

   • Because only those hypotheses that can be tested with a measurable experiment are valid, the third tenet of the scientific method is to design an experiment. When designing an experiment, a scientist should include both a control group, as well as any variables that he will be testing in his experiment. For example, if a scientist is testing whether or not a certain plant can survive without water, she would need to have a control group, in which a plant received adequate water. Having the control group ensures that the plant that is not being watered is not dying because of some other condition.

   Draw a Conclusion

   • After an experiment is conducted, the scientist will need to draw a conclusion. Many scientists draw conclusions by organizing and developing their results into a formal report so that other scientists can review their results. It is necessary that a scientist includes all of the information that she found during the experiment, whether or not it supports her thesis or overall conclusion. Developing a conclusion without bias is key to ensuring that your experiment maintains credibility.

   Reflect upon Results

   • The final essential principle of the scientific method includes reflecting upon your results. Consider whether or not the results caused you to ask more questions, which could lead you toward another experiment. You should also reflect upon your results with other scientists and determine whether or not your results contradict or prove the theories of other scientists.

Read more: Essential Tenets of the Scientific Method | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8775195_essential-tenets-scientific-method.html#ixzz1jsbsnMF2

Frederick Taylor is the person who is most often associated with the system labeled scientific management, and indeed, he was the originator of this set of concepts. However, there were others in the field of scientific management who had as much if not greater effect on the workplace. According to Sullivan (1987), Taylor's work not only represented the beginning of the managerial era in industrial production but also signaled the end of the craft era in the United States.

According to Hirschhorn (1984), Taylor's work highlights the relationship between rationalization in general and labor-control methods in particular. In Taylor's (1911) book, The Principles of Scientific Management, he discussed what he called a struggle for control of production between management and labor. To control production, he developed methods for the measure and design of machining methods as part of a general plan for increasing the planning functions of management. Taylor's fundamental concept and guiding principle was to design a production system that would involve both men and machines and that would be as efficient as a well-designed, well-oiled machine (Hughes, 1989). Time studies were used to allow management to take control of the operations, thereby controlling production methods, and, by default, production. This system required that management should take a more active role in the factory and, through engineers and salaried foremen, take greater control over operations. Skilled craftsmen and foremen had to give up their power (Hirschhorn, 1984).

Taylor developed his principles of management while a machinist and foreman at the Midvale Steel Company of Philadelphia. Taylor was bothered by, what was called as the time, "worker soldiering." (Worker soldiering refers to the practice of purposely stalling or slowing down work by the workers.) Taylor believed that the objective of workers when they stalled was to keep "their employers ignorant of how fast work can be done" (cited in Hughes, 1989, p. 190).

Taylor began his assault on "worker soldiering" by doing time studies of workers while they were undertaking their production activity. Taylor timed the workers' actions with a stopwatch. However, he did not time the entire job; instead, he broke down complex sequences of motions into what he labeled the elementary ones. He then timed the elementary actions as were performed by the workers he considered to be efficient in their movements. Having timed and analyzed the movements, he combined these elementary motions into a new set of complex motions that he insisted should be used by all workers. These calculations determined the piecework rate with bonuses paid for better rates and penalties taken for slower work. As Carl Barth, a disciple of Taylor noted in his testimony to the U.S. Commission of Industrial Relations,

"My dream is that the time will come when every drill press will be speeded just so, and every planer, every lathe the world over will be harmonized just like musical pitches are the same all over the world...so that we can standardize and say that for drilling a 1-inch hole the world over will be done with the same speed...That dream will come true, some time" (Barth, 1914, p. 889).

Taylor did not limit his method to the worker--he organized the redesign of the entire factory by removing control over operations from foremen and placing this control in a centralized planning department to be staffed with engineers. The planning department prepared detailed instructions about the machines and methods to be used and how long the job should take. Using sets of instruction cards (route slips) and reports, the planning department was able to produce a overall picture of the flow of parts in the plant--this activity was the beginning of formalized routing and scheduling in the factory.

Althought Taylor designed Scientific Management to resolve problems in the workplace, the effects of Scientific Management spread from the factory to everyday life. We will discuss the results of "Taylorism" in four different sections that are listed below.

Effects of Scientific Management

The immediate result of scientific management, according to Drucker (1967b) was a drastic cut in the cost of manufactured goods (1/10 to 1/20 of the previous manufactured cost). This allowed goods to be purchased by more people. Also, scientific management allowed the raising of wages (even while the cost of the product was dropping). This movement also caused a shift in the factories from unskilled laborer, usually paid at a subsistence wage, to machine operator, who was more highly paid.

A full version of Taylorism spread only slowly through the factory. As late as 1914 Robert Hoxie (cited in Hirschhorn, 1984) wrote that "no single shop was found which could be said to represent fully and faithfully the Taylor system as presented in the treatise on shop management." Taylor had lasting influence through his development of traditional manufacturing practices. In machine shops, for example, owners began to devise routing slips, inventory tracking methods, and an entire range of techniques for organizing production. These new techniques were inspired by the work of Taylor and the principles of scientific management.

Taylor's role in the history of industrial management is complex and still debated today. In industrial circles, he represented the transition from 19th century to 20th century manufacturing techniques. He was one of the first industrial managers who perceived "the interrelated character of the new manufacturing systems and the need for a disciplined, comprehension change if the manufacturer and the industrial sector were to attain the optimum results" (Nelson, 1980, p. 199). Few plants introduced his complete system but thousands of plants introduced elements of scientific management: time study methods; new machine tool practices; methods for managing tools, materials, machines, supervisors, and workers; and formal planning departments.

Scientific management became more widespread after World War I as professional managers moved into high management positions. The formation of bureaucratic organizations with middle management positions changed the role of the shop foreman and reduced his power. By the 1920s, big business executives were promoting the new factory management system and, by the late 1920s, the nation's most prominent labor leaders had become exponents of this "humanized" scientific management. Perhaps the most important legacy of Taylor and scientific management is the discipline that grew out of this field: industrial engineering. Industrial engineers today are still taught the methods of scientific management including time and motion studies, job-tasks analysis, wage-incentive determination, and detailed production planning. With respect to the field of operation research and management,

"Taylor's work had importance in ways directly germane to operations research. His contributions, great as they were intrinsically, were even more valuable in revealing the merit of creating elements of organization whose object was not the performance of operations, but their analysis: It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of this first basic step: the formation of organizations for research on operations...his work led to better decisions than those which were possible, and in most cases, necessary before" (George, 1968, pp. 151-152).

Reaction to "Taylorism" Taylor's methods and his views of the worker met with resistance from labor. Taylor believed that the success of his methods depended on management controlling and replacing the craft knowledge held by workers with a systematized method of production. However, workers did not accept Taylor's methods readily. In fact, as Taylor himself wrote, his attempt to redesign the work process "immediately started a war...which as time went on grew more and more bitter" (cited in Lasch, 1987, p. 80).

Despite the fact that Taylor's complete system was never fully implemented, he still had the most effect on the relations between management and labor in manufacturing organizations. Taylorism changed the relations between management and labor by changing the position of labor in the firm. Unorganized and unskilled workers bore much of the brunt of the advance of scientific management in the factory (Haber, 1964). The new system demanded that workers produced at higher speeds and with increased subordination to management. Skilled labor was replaced by cheap, easily trained and replaceable workers who came predominately from the so-called new immigrants (Ramirez, 1978). This deskilled labor was then disposable to management.

"The state of the labor market therefore gave businessmen and efficiency experts the necessary maneuvering space to introduce new methods of work and production and new wage structures and to select the workers who were most readily willing to adapt to them or, to put it in the common business jargon of the time, to perform 'the weeding out of the less efficient workmen.' In addition, welfare experts and personnel managers could more freely put into operation programs designed to adjust their work force, stabilize their labor relations, and boost the productivity of their enterprises" (Ramirez, 1978, p. 133).

In addition to the response from workers to Taylor's methods, his goals and methods drew criticism from politicians, industrialists , and humanists. Dos Passos, a prominent American writer of this period, recognized that Taylor's methods led to the deskilling of work. Also, he questioned the value that Taylor placed on abundance and the need for it in American society. "more steel rails more bicycles more spools of thread more armorplate for battleships more bedpans more barbed wire more needles more lightningrods more ballbearings more dollarbills (Dos Passos, 1936, p. 24).

Other critics of Taylor differed with his view that the interests of workers were identical to those of managers. These critics held Taylor responsible for a subjugation of workers to a kind of industrial slavery.

"Taylorism" and Organized Labor. In manufacturing, the efficiency movement caused an increase in output per unit of labor, between 1907 and 1915, of 33 percent a year, compared to an annual average increase of 9.9 percent between 1900 and 1907 (Ramirez, 1978). In addition, this "process of rationalization" of the workplace had an anti-working class character. Through the scientific management methods, workers were treated as machines, devalued, and paid less money for their efforts. A consequence of this treatment of workers was the rise of the unions and increased strikes and unrest among workers. One of the most famous strikes was against U.S. Steel in 1909, when more than 3,500 unorganized, mass production workers revolted against the inhuman working conditions produced by that company's efficiency drive which included a new mass production line and a piece rate system that resulted in speed-ups and a reduction in take home pay for most workers.

Interestingly, later, the principles of scientific management were accepted by organized labor who considered Taylor's principles a means for protecting jobs and controlling members (Sullivan, 1987). Using these principles, increased specialization in production enabled the unions to emphasize job control and worker rights in the shop floor. "This mass production model of shop-floor control depends on two key assumptions: a job is a precisely defined series of tasks; and seniority is the criterion for the allocation of jobs" (Sullivan, 1987, p. 96). As industrial unions took root across the United States, wage and job security provisions were established through collective bargaining by using sharply defined job tasks.