We've Been Teaching the Scientific Method Wrong. Here's What AQA's Research Says Instead

For years, many of us have taught practical science using a familiar framework.

Ask a question. Form a hypothesis. Change one variable. Measure the outcome. Draw a conclusion.

Ask students to describe the scientific method, and you'll usually hear some version of exactly that.

But what if that isn't actually how science works?

That was the central challenge posed by Emily McRae during her session on Research into Practical Work at the AQA Science Conference 2026. Alongside findings from Project Calibrate and the introduction of Brandon's Matrix, the session prompted me to rethink how I approach practical work, required practicals, and even how we prepare students for exam questions.

It was easily one of the most useful 90 minutes of CPD I've attended this year.

The Problem with "The Scientific Method"

The phrase the scientific method suggests there is one standard process that all scientists follow.

In schools, that process is often taught as:

1. Form a hypothesis
2. Change one variable
3. Control everything else
4. Collect data
5. Draw a conclusion

The issue is that this describes only one type of scientific investigation.

Real science is much broader than that.

Scientists observe patterns. They classify organisms. They measure parameters over time. They analyse correlations. Sometimes they manipulate variables, and sometimes they do not.

Yet many students leave school believing that science is synonymous with the fair test.

According to Project Calibrate, that's a problem.

What Is Project Calibrate?

Project Calibrate was a collaboration between AQA and the University of Oxford, funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, and The Royal Society.

Running between 2018 and 2020, the project explored how practical science is taught and assessed in England, with the aim of improving practical assessment at GCSE.

The research involved over 1,000 teachers and students and identified several key issues.

Practical science in England is often taught narrowly compared with approaches used internationally.

Students frequently associate science exclusively with hypothesis testing and fair testing, while giving far less attention to other scientific approaches such as observation, classification, and measurement.

The research also highlighted a common issue many teachers will recognise: practical work can become highly hands-on but not particularly minds-on.

Students complete practical activities successfully but struggle when asked to interpret data, evaluate evidence, or explain conclusions.

Perhaps most importantly, the research recognised the powerful influence of assessment.

If examinations reward a narrow view of science, classrooms inevitably follow suit.

As Emily McRae explained during the session, improving practical science teaching isn't simply about changing practical activities. It's about ensuring assessments value the full range of scientific thinking.

Brandon's Matrix: A Better Way to Think About Scientific Investigations

One of the most interesting outcomes of Project Calibrate is the use of Brandon's Matrix.

Rather than treating all investigations as variations of the same process, Brandon's Matrix categorises investigations according to two key questions:

• Does the investigation involve manipulating variables?
• Does the investigation involve testing a hypothesis?

This creates four distinct types of investigation.

1. Manipulative Hypothesis Testing

This is the traditional fair test most students are familiar with.

For example, students might investigate whether green inks are composed of blue and yellow pigments by comparing Rf values obtained through paper chromatography.

Variables are manipulated and a hypothesis is being tested.

2. Non-Manipulative Hypothesis Testing

In this type of investigation, a hypothesis is tested without changing any variables.

For example, forensic scientists might compare an unknown ink sample with one found at a crime scene to determine whether they match.

A hypothesis exists, but no variables are manipulated.

3. Manipulative Parameter Measurement

Here, variables are changed and measurements are taken, but there is no formal hypothesis being tested.

An example would be measuring Rf values for a range of different inks simply to collect and compare data.

4. Non-Manipulative Parameter Measurement

This category focuses on observation, classification, and measurement without manipulation or hypothesis testing.

For example, students might classify different inks as either pure pigments or mixtures.

No variables are changed, and no hypothesis is involved.

Why This Matters

The key message from Brandon's Matrix is that no single quadrant is more scientific than another.

They are simply different ways of generating knowledge.

The problem arises when students only experience one quadrant throughout their science education.

If every practical is framed as a fair test, students develop an incomplete understanding of how science actually operates.

As Emily McRae pointed out, many real-world scientific investigations do not involve changing variables at all.

A Covid-19 Example

One example discussed during the session came from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Different scientific approaches were used simultaneously:

• Clinicians recording how patients' breathing changed over time were carrying out non-manipulative parameter measurement.
• Researchers investigating links between incubation period and disease severity were conducting non-manipulative hypothesis testing.
• Clinical drug trials represented manipulative hypothesis testing.

All three approaches contributed valuable evidence.

None represented a single universal "scientific method."

Is This Already Influencing Exam Questions?

Interestingly, it appears the answer may be yes.

AQA has been using Brandon's Matrix in examiner training and has developed draft assessment materials based on the framework.

Some of the example questions felt familiar. Others looked noticeably different from traditional GCSE practical questions.

One example asked students to identify which type of investigation had been carried out:

Tested a hypothesis and changed at least one variable.

Tested a hypothesis and did not change any variables.

Did not test a hypothesis but changed at least one variable.

Did not test a hypothesis and did not change any variables.

At first glance, this seems straightforward.

Students already understand variables and hypotheses.

However, the thinking required is different. Instead of recalling a method, students must classify the investigation itself.

Another question challenged students who believed that practical work is only scientific if variables are altered.

Students were asked why the statement was incorrect.

The answer:

Scientists use observations as evidence to draw conclusions.

Reading that answer made me stop and think.

I suspect many of my own students would understand it once explained.

But I'm not sure they have been taught to think about investigations in that way.

What Does the Evidence Say?

Project Calibrate didn't just develop the framework.

Researchers also trialled assessment materials across biology, chemistry, and physics.

The assessment package included:

• One question from each quadrant of Brandon's Matrix
• An additional question evaluating different investigation methods
• Alignment with existing GCSE assessment objectives

Feedback from teachers and students was encouraging.

Among the participating schools:

• 86% of teachers found the assessments useful for assessing practical science
• Around 75% of students agreed that the resources helped them understand scientific methods more effectively

The researchers were careful to point out that the sample was not nationally representative, as many participating schools were located in London, Liverpool, and surrounding areas.

However, the qualitative feedback was particularly interesting.

Teachers reported that students thought more carefully about what they were doing during practical work rather than simply following instructions.

Others noted increased student ownership because learners better understood the reasoning behind the investigation.

The research also highlighted an important caveat: this approach works best when embedded throughout the curriculum rather than added as an occasional standalone activity.

What I'm Taking Forward

This session has already influenced my thinking in several practical ways.

1. Mapping Practicals to Brandon's Matrix

As I develop required practical content for my YouTube channel and build accompanying teacher resources, I'll be deliberately mapping practical activities onto Brandon's Matrix.

Not every required practical is a manipulative hypothesis test, and recognising that distinction matters.

2. Using More Observation and Classification Questions

The research identified a gap in students' experience of observation-based and classification-based investigations.

That's something I want to address more explicitly in lessons and revision resources.

3. Starting with the Investigation Type

Before discussing methods or variables, I want students to ask:

What kind of investigation is this, and why?

That feels like the missing minds-on step highlighted throughout the Project Calibrate research.

Final Thoughts

The biggest takeaway from Emily McRae's session wasn't that we've been teaching practical science badly.

It's that many of us have been teaching a version of science that is narrower than the reality.

Brandon's Matrix provides a simple framework for broadening that view.

Instead of presenting science as one method repeated endlessly, it encourages students to see science as a collection of approaches, each suited to different questions and different types of evidence.

And perhaps that's a far more authentic picture of what scientists actually do.

If you teach GCSE or A-Level science, I'd strongly recommend exploring the Project Calibrate resources and trying some of the example questions with your students.

You may find, as I did, that they reveal gaps in understanding you didn't know were there.

Thanks to Emily McRae for a brilliant, practical session, and to Damian Gent, Elise Reece and the AQA team for organising the day.

Want to Save Time Planning A-Level Biology Lessons?

If you've found this post helpful, why not take a look inside one of my done-for-you AQA A-Level Biology lessons completely free?

I know investing in teaching resources can feel like a risk. We've all downloaded resources that promised to save time and ended up creating more work. That's why I've made one of my full AQA lessons available for free so you can see exactly how they're structured before committing to anything.

Free Lesson: Carbohydrates

In this free lesson walkthrough, I'll take you through:

✔️ The complete lesson resource pack
✔️ How I teach the lesson in practice
✔️ The structure and flow of the lesson
✔️ Retrieval, questioning and exam-focus strategies
✔️ Exactly what students see and do during the lesson

Whether you're teaching A-Level Biology for the first time or simply looking to reduce your planning workload, this will give you a clear idea of how my resources can support you.

👉 Get the free Carbohydrates lesson and walkthrough here

Get Free Teaching Tips Straight to Your Inbox

When you download the lesson, you'll also join my email community where I share:

• Time-saving teaching strategies

• A-Level Biology revision tips

• Exam board insights and updates

• Classroom ideas you can use immediately

• New resources and free training

Simply enter your name and email to get instant access.

Less planning. More evenings back.