Mystery Tube Challenge: The Nature & Process of Science
At a Glance
Discipline
- STEM
- Physics
Instructional Level
- College & CEGEP
Course
- Physics of Sports (Topic: Nature of Science)
Tasks in Workflow
Social Plane(s)
- Group
Type of Tasks
- Creating & designing
Technical Details
Class size
- Small (20-49)
Time
- Single class period (< 90 mins)
Inclusivity & Accessibility
- Variety of action & expression
Instructional Purpose
- Exploration & inquiry
Overview
This activity engages students in the process of scientific inquiry by modeling how scientists infer unseen mechanisms from observable evidence. By engaging first in the scientific process of observing, hypothesizing, testing and modelling, students will practice basic scientific inquiry skills. During this activity, small groups of students manipulate a sealed tube and observe its rope movements, propose models, and refine their hypotheses through testing.
Most importantly, by NOT being shown the “right” answer at the end, students gain a deeper understanding of what scientific knowledge is (our best current understanding of the natural world), and what it is not (the right answer), which they can then apply to their day to day lives. This activity draws from constructivist and inquiry-based learning approaches and can take place in class or lab, lasts 30 minutes (longer if you wish) and is used early in the course to introduce the nature of scientific investigation.
Check out the workflow below to review the activity sequence.
Citation to others: Variations of this activity have been around for a long time and are used by many teachers and educational groups. I would like to thank my colleague, Nanouk Paré, for introducing me to the activity and for making two big mystery tubes that I borrow every semester.
Instructional Objectives
- Apply a basic inquiry process for developing a model: observe, collect data, hypothesize, test and collect more data, modify hypothesis and continue –
- Explain how science can be both inherently uncertain but also reliable, by referring to the process in the above objective.
Workflow & Materials
Activity Workflow
Contributor's Notes
- In order to make informed decisions for themselves, for society, and for the world, students must better understand the Nature of Science. By fully engaging students natural curiosity, and then denying them the “right answer,” this is an activity that has a lasting impact on students’ understanding of the Nature of Science. In particular, it debunks the false and misused dichotomy of uncertainty vs reliability.
- When denied finding out what is actually inside the tube, some students can become quite frustrated and beg for an answer after class. Of course, they can easily find the answer online, but rather than suggest this, I recommend gently reminding them that in real science, there is no way to look inside “the tube,” and scientists must use the feeling they are having right now to continue to refine their tests and increase the reliability of their model or – in some cases, to completely rethink their ideas.
- Like most good activities, time can be an issue. I like to complete this activity in 30 minutes or less, and so I do the following: model, predict, test, revise, predict, test before moving on to the discussion, all the while giving students 2 minute warnings for each step.
- Without clear requirements for writing things down, some teams will not construct a proper model nor make a clear prediction. Along with requiring the model to be drawn and labelled and the predictions to be written in words, I also strongly recommend that the teacher circulates and verbally encourages each group to elaborate their written work, as needed.
- No devices is definitely my rule. I also ask people who have seen or done this activity before to NOT give anything away. There is usually one person who has done it at some point in their life.
- I only have 2 good mystery tubes (borrowed from my colleague, Nanouk Paré) and so I do the pulling myself, in front of the class. I do pass the tubes around while they are working on their first model, but recollect them before testing their first prediction. It is important to remove the tubes from the students before carrying out the tests, or students will jump ahead and not take the time to do separate prediction and tests, resulting in a less scientific process.
- How long you spend engaging in the modelling, testing, revising stage depends how important that part of the learning is to you. Are you focused on having them learn about constructing models or are you most interested in having them learn about the epistemology of science and its inherent uncertainty? For me, the latter is the most important, and so I shortcut the modeling process, and emphasize the end, where they are left hanging – not knowing for sure if their model was “right.”
- I like to precede this activity with a lesson on the Nature of Science. Then, in the next class, I write on the board the key takeaways from that lesson, showing some of the important tensions that make science what it is: Powerful yet limited, empirical yet theory driven, human and therefore subjective but always striving for objectivity, dynamic and never certain yet reliable. I then explain that this last one is what we are going to focus on today, starting with the mystery tube.
Applied Strategies
Published: 10/02/2026
Copyright: © 2026 Jackson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication on this website is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.