Blub

sirdarksol

Tavel, I agree that this is bad scientific method, but not for the reasons that you stated. All thirty cups are under the same conditions, so you would be learning something. The conclusion that they came to would not necessarily be correct, but that's not an issue of the scientific method, that's an issue of the theory. (What I'm getting at is that the experiment was more about how a sudden drop in temp affected goldfish's respiration, it's just that the teacher didn't realize this and didn't explain it)

The bad scientific method is what Susitna said early on in the discussion. In those little cups, there's very little oxygen, which will affect respiration severely. By the second day, it will be even worse, as waste products begin affecting the water's oxygen capacity.

That being said, the experiment itself is a disgrace. Good or bad scientific method matters little to me in the face of bad scientific ethics.
And it's not that the experiment couldn't be done ethically. The teacher has an excellent point. Carp (goldfish's "parents" for lack of a better term) naturally live in water that ranges to near-freezing. Goldfish can live and thrive in ponds that nearly completely freeze over. Their bodies are built to handle this. As has been said, it's the speed of the change that's harmful.
Set up a tank in the classroom and heat the tank to a tropical temp (around 80 would be good). Have the kids take readings in little groups while having other stuff around the classroom to further their study. This part of the experiment lasts for the two days (as the classes are every other day).
For the next two classes, pull the heater out of the tank (not ideal, but a far cry better than dropping ice cubes in a cup). Repeat having the kids take their readings. Even better would be if the instructor could afford an aquarium chiller in order to drop the temp even more.
Depending on the level of the class, you could also get the equipment to measure dissolved oxygen and discuss how much of the slowed breathing is due to slow body process and how much is due to more oxygen in the water (requiring less rapid breath)

This method would also leave the classroom with one goldfish to tend after the experiment. Far easier to do than thirty.

Tavel

sirdarksol: We both agree that the teacher failed to control variables, it doesn't really matter what the experiment is. THAT's bad science, and it's a shame the students are learning those skills.

Besides, I bet the childrens' wonderfully inept measuring skills made for some very meaningless results...Which only maginifies the importance of good methods and theory!

I can only imagine, and chuckle, what would happen if they were asked to make a difficult measurement like dissolved oxygen. haha!

HatchetHaven: thanks! That's my Great Plains toad trying to push a cricket down...I like to think he's roaring. lol!

sirdarksol

Further beauty of using one fish and having each child measure its breathing rate. Take the average results of the thirty measurements, and you're likely to end up close to the truth.
Aside from that, the important part was teaching the idea of scientific method, rather than gathering the true results, so showing them how to back their data up with others' data (even if that data happens to be incorrect, due to the fact that they're kids) would teach them a valuable trait.

Ntruder1400

As long as the school has the "subjects" for testing - why not spend $30 and get a cheap 10g tank with filter and gravel, put a couple of the goldies in there and nurture their environment. Then get a 1g bowl or two for another fish, and leave the rest in the cups (which is probably better than the way the teacher will euthanise them *flush*), and test water parameters for the rest of the year and compare those figures to the survival ratio of the fish.

I understand that this may sound cruel, but if the teacher is OK with keeping them in cups and dropping ice cubes in there, then I'm sure the method of execution will be worse than keeping them in the cups and measuring the parameters. At least the kids will learn that the quality of the environment directly impacts survival.

sirdarksol

There is some merit to this, except that most fish (and particularly goldfish) are far smarter than we give them credit for, and keeping goldfish in a cup would be like keeping a person in a 3'x3' room for the entirety of a quarter.
Whatever method of "euthanizing" the fish will be over far quicker than the torture that would be levied over the rest of the school year.
Believe me, I love the long-term lesson that would be taught, but I think that the long-term torture would actually be worse than their deaths.

tan.b

i am shocked! i cant believe the school allowed such an experiment! at our school the only animal things we did was dissect a pigs heart and cows eye (off cuts from the butchers basically, so no "torture" as such, any more than the steak etc that came from the same animal, and counting fruit flies. even during my degree in science, the only animal thing we did was using a piece of gut from an animal that will have come from a butchers. other animal things were taught using simulation on the computer of life processes for humans and animals. you could put in scenarios and the software would demonstrate the outcome and give results, from which you could do your graphs, conclusions etc. not only do no animals get harmed.....but the results are surprisingly predictable making it easier for teacher and pupil!!

COBettaCouple

That's a much more civilized method.