小学生发表sci_影响因子3.5

doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.1056 published online 22 December 2010Biol. Lett. B. Lotto Roblyn, H. Rodwell-Lynn, D. Schenck, J. Springer, A. Wishy, T. Rodwell-Lynn, D. Strudwick and R. Littlejohns, G. M. Littlejohns, M. Lotto, J. McKeown, A. O'Toole, H. Richards, L. Robbins-Davey, S. Cumming, L. Fraquelli, C. Hackford, A. Hinton Mellor, M. Hutchcroft, B. Ireland, D. Jewsbury, A. P. S. Blackawton, S. Airzee, A. Allen, S. Baker, A. Berrow, C. Blair, M. Churchill, J. Coles, R. F.-J. Blackawton bees Supplementary data ml http:/rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/suppl/2010/12/21/rsbl.2010.1056.DC1.ht “Data Supplement“ PP Published online 22 December 2010 in advance of the print journal. Subject collections (414 articles)cognition ? (1701 articles)behaviour ? Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections Email alerting service hereright-hand corner of the article or click Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top publication. Citations to Advance online articles must include the digital object identifier (DOIs) and date of initial online articles are citable and establish publication priority; they are indexed by PubMed from initial publication. the paper journal (edited, typeset versions may be posted when available prior to final publication). Advance Advance online articles have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet appeared in http:/rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions go to: Biol. Lett.To subscribe to This journal is © 2010 The Royal Society on January 8, 2011rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.orgDownloaded from Animal behaviour Blackawton bees P. S. Blackawton1, S. Airzee1, A. Allen1, S. Baker1, A. Berrow1, C. Blair1, M. Churchill1, J. Coles1, R. F.- J. Cumming1, L. Fraquelli1, C. Hackford1, A. Hinton Mellor1, M. Hutchcroft1, B. Ireland1, D. Jewsbury1, A. Littlejohns1, G. M. Littlejohns1, M. Lotto1, J. McKeown1, A. OToole1, H. Richards1, L. Robbins-Davey1, S. Roblyn1, H. Rodwell-Lynn1, D. Schenck1, J. Springer1, A. Wishy1, T. Rodwell-Lynn1, D. Strudwick1and R. B. Lotto2,* 1Blackawton Primary School, Blackawton, Devon, UK 2Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL, UK *Author for correspondence (lottoucl.ac.uk). Background: Real science has the potential to not only amaze, but also transform the way one thinks of the world and oneself. This is because the process of science is little different from the deeply resonant, natural processes of play. Play enables humans (and other mam- mals)todiscover(andcreate)relationships and patterns. When one adds rules to play, a game is created. This is science: the process of playing with rules that enables one to reveal previouslyunseenpatternsofrelationships thatextendourcollectiveunderstandingof nature and human nature. When thought of in this way, science education becomes a more enlightened and intuitive process of asking ques- tionsanddevisinggamestoaddressthose questions.But,becausetheoutcomeofall game-playing is unpredictable, supporting this messyness, which is the engine of science, is critical to good science education (and indeed creative education generally). Indeed, we have learnedthatdoingrealscienceinpublic spaces can stimulate tremendous interest in children and adults in understanding the pro- cesses by which we make sense of the world. The present study (on the vision of bumble- bees) goes even further, since it was not only performed outside my laboratory (in a Norman church in the southwest of England), but the games were themselves devised in collabor- ation with 25 8- to 10-year-old children. They asked the questions, hypothesized the answers, designed the games (in other words, the exper- iments) to test these hypotheses and analysed the data. They also drew the fi gures (in coloured pencil) and wrote the paper. Their headteacher (Dave Strudwick) and I devised the educational programme (we call i,scientist), and I trained the bees and transcribed the childrens words into text (which was done with smaller groups of children at the schools local village pub). So what follows is a novel study (scientifi cally and conceptually) in kids speak without references to past literature, which is a challenge. Although the historical context of any study is of course important, including references in this instance would be disingenuous for two reasons. First, giventheway scientifi cdataarenaturally reported, the relevant information is simply inaccessibletotheliterateabilityof8-to 10-year-oldchildren,andsecond,thetrue motivation for any scientifi c study (at least one of integrity) is ones own curiousity, which for the children was not inspired by the scientifi c literature, but their own observations of the world. This lack of historical, scientifi c context does not diminish the resulting data, scientifi c methodology or merit of the discovery for the scientifi c and non-scientifi c audien