How solving a crime teaches students about science.

A crime has been committed and it is up to the students to decipher the clues and come up with a suspect as well as the weapon, time, place, and motive for the crime.

But wait...aren't the students supposed to be learning about the earth, moon and sun this term?  What does solving a crime have to do with that?


As we study science, a practice students need to become familiar with is using logic to interpret evidence to support a claim.  We have so far learned about Alfred Wegener and his continental drift hypothesis.  Using four different and distinct evidences, Wegener attempted to convince the scientific community that the continents were at one point connected creating a single landmass called Pangaea and over millions of years have drifted apart and continue, albeit very slowly, to drift apart.  Although his evidences were compelling the scientific community rejected Wegener's hypothesis mainly because he was not able to (or didn't have time because he died prematurely in an expedition to the south pole) explain how the continents were drifting.  Not until almost a half century after Wegener published his

findings did the larger scientific community adopt his hypothesis and only after scientists discovered the process of seafloor spreading which explained "how" the continents were drifting.


This is an example of how evidence is so important in supporting claims in science.  Even though Wegener had evidence, it was not enough to prove his hypothesis.  The scientific community needed more, they needed the "how".  In solving a crime, it is not always enough to know the who (suspect), what (weapon), when (time),  and where (place).  The how (motive) is just as important.  Using a crime scenario allows students to practice gathering and interpreting evidence in a new and fun way.