Redesigning a General Education Science Course to Promote Critical Thinking

14:ar30, 1

CBE—Life Sciences Education

Redesigning a General Education Science Course to Promote Critical ThinkingMatthew P. Rowe,*†‡ B. Marcus Gillespie,†§ Kevin R. Harris,|| Steven D. Koether,¶ Li-Jen Y. Shannon,# and Lori A. Rose*

*Department of Biological Sciences, §Department of Geography & Geology, ¶College of Sciences, and #Department of Computer Science, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX 77340; ||Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, TN 38505

Submitted February 20, 2015; Revised April 24, 2015; Accepted April 24, 2015Monitoring Editor: Ross Nehm

Recent studies question the effectiveness of a traditional university curriculum in helping students improve their critical thinking and scientific literacy. We developed an introductory, general educa-tion (gen ed) science course to overcome both deficiencies. The course, titled Foundations of Science, differs from most gen ed science offerings in that it is interdisciplinary; emphasizes the nature of science along with, rather than primarily, the findings of science; incorporates case studies, such as the vaccine-autism controversy; teaches the basics of argumentation and logical fallacies; contrasts science with pseudoscience; and addresses psychological factors that might otherwise lead students to reject scientific ideas they find uncomfortable. Using a pretest versus posttest design, we show that students who completed the experimental course significantly improved their critical-thinking skills and were more willing to engage scientific theories the general public finds controversial (e.g., evolution), while students who completed a traditional gen ed science course did not. Our results demonstrate that a gen ed science course emphasizing the process and application of science rather than just scientific facts can lead to improved critical thinking and scientific literacy.

Article

A primary goal of education in general, and higher educa-tion in particular, is to improve the critical-thinking skills of students (Facione et al., 1995; Van Gelder, 2005; Bok, 2006). Sadly, higher education appears insufficient to the task, with recent studies (Arum and Roksa, 2010; Arum et al., 2011; Pascarella et al., 2011) showing minimal gains in students’ critical-thinking and analytical skills during their under-graduate careers, reducing their employment potential upon

Vol. 14, 1–12, Fall 2015

© 2015 M. P. Rowe, B. M. Gillespie, et al. CBE—Life Sciences Educa-tion © 2015 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribu-tion–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).“ASCB®”and “The American Society for Cell Biology®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology.

†These authors contributed equally to this work.‡Present address: Department of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.Conflict of interest: Authors M.P.R., B.M.G., S.D.K., and L.A.R. were responsible for the development and evaluation of the instruction-al materials and assessments other than the Critical thinking As-sessment Test (CAT). K.R.H. is an employee in the Center for As-sessment & Improvement of Learning at Tennessee Technological University, a nonprofit entity that, with support from the National Science Foundation, developed, validated, and distributes the CAT on a fee-per-use basis. The authors will gladly provide any and all of the course materials, other than the CAT assessment tool, to in-structors interested in reviewing the materials for potential use in

DOI:10.1187/cbe.15-02-0032CBE Life Sci Educ September 2, 2015 14:ar30

their courses. For details regarding experimental analyses, results, and interpretations, contact M.P.R. For details regarding course development and structure, contact B.M.G.Address correspondence to: Matthew P. Rowe (rowemat1@msu .edu) or B. Marcus Gillespie ([email protected]).

INTRODUCTION

If we teach only the findings and products of science—no matter how useful and even inspiring they may be—without communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience?

Sagan, 1996, p. 21

by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from

http://www.lifescied.org/content/suppl/2015/07/24/14.3.ar30.DC1.htmlSupplemental Material can be found at:

by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from by guest on August 13, 2015http://www.lifescied.org/Downloaded from

http://www.lifescied.org/

http://www.lifescied.org/content/suppl/2015/07/24/14.3.ar30.DC1.html










































M. P. Rowe, B. M. Gillespie, et al.

14:ar30, 2 CBE—Life Sciences Education

graduation (Arum and Roksa, 2014). Science courses, with their focus on evidence and logic, should provide exemplary exposure to and training in critical thinking. Here, too, we appear to be failing, both at the level of individual science classes and programmatically in the science core, given the ineffectiveness of these courses to either improve students’ scientific knowledge or mitigate their acceptance of pseudo-scientific claims (Walker et al., 2002; Johnson and Pigliucci, 2004; Impey et al., 2011; Carmel and Yezierski, 2013).

The inadequacy of standard approaches to teaching sci-ence is demonstrated by the fact that 93% of American adults and 78% of those with college degrees are scientifically illit-erate (Hazen, 2002); that is, they do not understand science as an empirically based method of inquiry, they lack knowl-edge of fundamental scientific facts, and they are unable to understand the science-related material published in a news-paper such as the Washington Post (Miller, 1998, 2012). Such deficiencies extend to science majors as well. For example, a study of 170 undergraduates at the University of Tennes-see found that, while science majors knew more science facts than non–science majors, there were no differences between the two groups in their conceptual understanding of sci-ence or their belief in pseudoscience (Johnson and Pigliucci, 2004). This poor understanding of science adversely affects the ability of individuals to make informed decisions about science-related issues, including well-established theories like the big bang, which is rejected by nearly two-thirds of Americans (National Science Foundation, 2014). The woe-ful lack of scientific literacy similarly provides insight into the public (though not scientific) controversies surrounding such issues as evolution (Miller et al., 2006), global climate change (Morrison, 2011; Reardon, 2011), and the safety of childhood immunizations (Mnookin, 2011; Offit, 2011). In short, there appears to be a gap between a fundamental goal of science education, to produce scientifically literate citi-zens, and the results of the pedagogical approaches intended to meet this goal. Particularly troublesome is the ripple effect of inadequate science education at the university level, lead-ing to poor teacher preparation and threatening the quality of science instruction in our public schools (Eve and Dunn, 1990; Rutledge and Warden, 2000).

Commonly identified causes of the impotency of science courses, especially the introductory courses taken by the majority of college students, are their tendency to focus on scientific “facts” rather than on the nature of science (John-son and Pigliucci, 2004; Alberts, 2005), often reinforced by exams that reward memorization over higher-order thinking (Alberts, 2009; Momsen et al., 2010); the reluctance to directly engage students’ misconceptions (Alters and Nelson, 2002; Nelson, 2008; Alberts, 2005; Verhey, 2005); the failure to con-nect “science as a way of knowing” with decisions faced by students in their daily lives (Kuhn, 1993; Walker et al., 2002); and the resistance of faculty trained in more innovative ped-agogical approaches to actually employ them (Ebert-May et al., 2011). The traditional approach to science education not only fosters scientific illiteracy, but also alienates many students from science (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Ede, 2000; Johnson, 2007) and, ultimately, jeopardizes America’s global competitiveness (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2010). While methods emphasizing active learning demonstrate significant pedagogical improvements for students majoring

in the sciences (Freeman et al., 2014), ∼85% of the 1.8 million students graduating from college annually in the United States are not science majors (Snyder and Dillow, 2013). Our goal, therefore, was to develop and test an intervention targeting this larger, frequently overlooked, yet extremely important audience. But what would scientific literacy comprise for students completing only one or two science courses during their college careers? What tools could we use to measure said literacy? And how might we best, in a single course or two, help our students achieve it?

Our answer to these questions was an integrative, general education (gen ed) science course titled Foundations of Sci-ence (FoS), selected as the centerpiece of the Quality Enhance-ment Plan for reaffirmation at Sam Houston State University (SHSU; Sam Houston State University, 2009). Per Sagan’s (1996) admonition, the FoS course focuses as much on the nature of science as on its facts. We intentionally sought to demystify the process of science by selecting examples, such as the vaccine-autism controversy, that not only held the stu-dents’ attention but also, and as importantly, helped demon-strate the utility of “evidentiary thinking” in their daily lives. A brief list of the central tenets of the course is provided be-low; more detail is available in the “Expanded Course Ratio-nale and Structure” in our Supplemental Material.

Critical ThinkingOur central hypothesis was that critical thinking—defined as the ability to draw reasonable conclusions based on evi-dence, logic, and intellectual honesty—is inherent to scientif-ic reasoning (Facione, 1990, 2015; American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; Bernstein et al., 2006) and is therefore an essential aspect of scientific literacy. Scientific literacy, then, can best be achieved by offering an alternative type of integrated science course that focuses on these foundations rather than on the traditional “memorize the facts” approach to science education. A simple, operation-al approach to critical thinking is provided by Bernstein et al. (2006) via a set of questions one should ask when presented with a claim (e.g., vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, there are no transitional fossils). 1) What am I be-ing asked to accept? 2) What evidence supports the claim? 3) Are there alternative explanations/hypotheses? And, fi-nally, 4) what evidence supports the alternatives? The most likely explanation is the one that is best supported. Evidence matters, but only when all of the evidence for and against each of the competing hypotheses has been examined—fully, thoughtfully, and honestly. Sounds like science, doesn’t it? But how can we get science-phobic college students to use it? Perhaps by focusing on topics the non–science student finds interesting, including astrology, homeopathy, Bigfoot, and even intelligent design. But aren’t these ideas just pseudosci-entific nonsense? Of course, but students need to understand why they are pseudo rather than real science, and critical thinking/scientific literacy is the key. This is the approach adopted by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn (2014) in How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, one of the two main texts we adopt in the course.

This text and the course also help students identify and analyze the validity and soundness of arguments. We in-clude a discussion of common heuristics and several logical fallacies, some examples being correlation proves causation,



Critical Thinking and Gen Ed Science

Vol. 14, Fall 2015 14:ar30, 3

appeal to the masses, and ad hominem attacks. An under-standing and awareness of strong versus weak arguments, and the informal fallacies used to surreptitiously circumvent the former, are essential to critical thinking and to the evalu-ation of claims—whether scientific or pseudoscientific.

Integrating Content with ProcessWhile there has been a clarion call for teachers to focus more on scientific process and less on scientific facts (Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990; AAAS, 1993, 2010), content still matters. Therefore, in addition to the critical-thinking text by Schick and Vaughn, we also use an integrated science textbook (e.g., Hewitt et al., 2013; Trefil and Hazen, 2013) as our second text, typically a custom printing that includes only those chapters whose content we cover in the course. We are fortunate that our course includes both “lecture” and “lab” components, providing multiple, weekly opportunities for active learning. We employ, as a cornerstone of our approach, case studies we have built specifically for the FoS course. Cases, we have found, permit us to teach content and process at the same time, in a manner that engages the non–science student. One of our cases, for example, examines the purported connec-tion between vaccines and autism (Rowe, 2010). Working in small groups, students examine the data from Andrew Wakefield et al.’s (1998) paper, the proverbial match that lit the current firestorm of antivaccine hysteria (Mnookin, 2011; Offit, 2011). After dissecting Wakefield’s data and his conclu-sions, students are tasked with designing a better study. In so doing, they learn a great deal about sample size, replication, double-blind studies, and scientific honesty, that is, the pro-cedural underpinnings of good science. But the students also learn about antibodies, antigens, herd immunity, and autism spectrum disorders, that is, the findings of science. Similar-ly, in a case in which students use the science of ecology to go “hunting” for the Loch Ness monster (Rowe, 2015), they must learn and then apply scientific “findings” ranging from the second law of thermodynamics to minimum viable popu-lation sizes to postglacial rebound. A large part of the success we witness in our experimental course is due, we believe, to this integration of scientific facts with scientific process.

Addressing Cognitive BarriersAn emphasis on evidentiary thinking combined with an in-tegration of content and process will achieve little if students are unable or unwilling to objectively evaluate a claim, hy-pothesis, or theory. Cognitive barriers can stand in the way of rational decision making (Posner et al., 1982; Sinatra et al., 2008). We designed the FoS course to overcome two such bar-riers. One hurdle is peoples’ personal experiences, which, for many, trump critical thinking (Chabris and Simons, 2010). If something feels real, looks real, tastes real, if we saw it, ex-perienced it, then it must be true. Zinc is not effective against the common cold? Why, then, did my headache disappear when I used zinc-infused cough drops? Vaccines do not cause autism? What else could explain why my son stopped walking two days after his MMR shot? To help students un-derstand the limitations of anecdotal evidence, including their own personal experiences, we guide them through an exploration of the science of perception and memory. We use illusions to show how our brain unconsciously takes short-cuts that can lead to misperceptions. And we employ simple

exercises to demonstrate the malleability and fallibility of memories. Critical thinking requires we recognize that our perceptions and our memories may be flawed.

The second barrier starts once perceptions and memories have solidified into an opinion. Opinions, once formed, resist change; the more important the belief, the more stubbornly we hang onto it, even in the light of contradictory evidence (Tavris and Aronson, 2007). An honest evaluation of compet-ing explanations requires that students understand cognitive dissonance and its servant twins, expectation bias and con-firmation bias. Facts do not matter to someone who does not want to hear them, and evidence is easily discounted when examined with prejudice. Indeed, simply throwing facts at biased conclusions may cause further retrenchment as, for example, was demonstrated in a recent study (Nyhan et al., 2014) of the rebellion against childhood immunizations. Re-sults of the study, which surveyed 1759 parents, are discour-aging, in that an intervention presenting the overwhelming evidence that vaccines do not cause autism made parents less likely to vaccinate, not more (Nyhan et al., 2014).

Social judgment theory (SJT) offers an explanation of Nyhan et al.’s (2014) counterintuitive results. SJT postulates there is a range, a latitude, of ideas similar to a person’s cur-rent position he or she might be willing to consider as being true if presented with information that supports the idea. However, if the idea is too different from the person’s initial belief, if it lies outside his or her latitude of acceptance, it will be rejected (Erwin, 2014). Furthermore, the more involved a person is with a view, the wider the latitudes of rejection and the narrower the latitudes of acceptance (Benoit, n.d.). If we want students to understand and accept the big bang theory and the theory of evolution, ideas many find uncomfortable, we cannot simply present the overwhelming evidence in favor of these ideas, we must also accommodate and over-come the dissonance these explanations engender. SJT was, therefore, a central, guiding tenet in the topical organization of the course, briefly outlined below. Topics in the first third of the course are, we believe, the most unusual, so we focus on those here. Additional details of the topics included in the course, the reasons we included them, and the materials we used to teach them can be found in the “Expanded Course Rationale and Structure” in our Supplemental Material, along with a copy of an example course syllabus.

Topical OrganizationWe begin the course by discussing the witch hunts of the 14th through 18th centuries. By some accounts, more than half a million innocent victims were horribly tortured and then killed under the mistaken belief they were the cause of miscarriages, crop failures, and storms, that is, calamities and misfortunes we now know have underlying natural, not supernatural, causes (Sagan, 1996; Cawthorne, 2004). A com-mon question we frequently pose to the students is “What is the harm in believing in something that is not true?” The stu-dents, having no personal stake in the fates of these historical victims, easily grasp the importance of evidence, skepticism, and the need for multiple working hypotheses when seeking causal explanations.

Lest the students think witch hunts are a thing of the past, we segue to a discussion of modern witch hunts, with a fo-cus on the satanic ritual abuse mass hysteria of the 1980s





as international. The average age of the institution’s under-graduates is 22 yr. Approximately half of the students are first-generation college students. Because the FoS course is an open-enrollment, gen ed core science course with no prerequisites, the demographic makeup of the course likely represents that of the university. We compared the effective-ness of the FoS course with several traditional introducto-ry science courses for nonmajors taught at the university, courses which, as gen ed survey courses, should also reflect the demographics of the university as a whole.

Experimental ApproachWe used a pretest versus posttest design to assess the effective-ness of the FoS. Our treatment group consisted of several sec-tions of the experimental course taught over multiple semes-ters (Table 1). Our comparison group was composed of several different, traditional gen ed science courses, also sampled over multiple semesters, offered by the departments of chemistry, physics, biology, and geography/geology (Table 1). During the study period of Fall semester 2008 through Fall semester 2012, the average class size in each section of our experimental FoS course was 51.75 (±1.17 SE) students; the lab/discussion sections that accompanied the FoS course were capped at 30 students/section. Over the same period, average class size in the traditional courses that formed our comparison group was 51.00 (± 6.07 SE) students. All of the comparison courses also included a lab, similarly capped at 30 students.

Assessment ToolsTo examine changes in student analytical skills, we used the Critical thinking Assessment Test (CAT) developed by the Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning at Ten-nessee Tech University (TTU; Stein and Haynes, 2011; Stein et al., 2007). The CAT exam assesses several aspects of criti-cal thinking, including the evaluation and interpretation of information, problem solving, creative thinking, and com-munication. Student skills encompassed by the CAT include their ability to interpret graphs and equations, solve basic math problems, identify logical fallacies, recognize when ad-ditional information might be needed to evaluate a claim, understand the limitations of correlational data, and devel-op alternative explanations for a claim. These aspects of the CAT exam conform to accepted constructs that characterize critical thinking (Facione, 1990, 2015), and align well with those taught in the FOS course, which specifically empha-sizes the ability to draw appropriate conclusions based on multiple working hypotheses, evidence, and reason. The CAT instrument consists of 15 questions, most of which are short-answer responses. More than 200 institutions of higher education are now using the CAT for assessing programmat-ic changes designed to improve critical thinking among col-lege students, permitting us to compare our results not only with traditional gen ed science courses being taught at our own institution but also with national norms.

To examine changes in the attitudes of students about science in general, and controversial scientific theories in particular, we used the Measure of Acceptance of the The-ory of Evolution (MATE), a 20-question, Likert-scale survey (Rutledge and Warden, 1999; Rutledge and Sadler, 2007) that has been widely used for assessing the acceptance of evolutionary theory among high school teachers and college

and 1990s (Nathan and Snedeker, 2001). As with the earlier hunts, hundreds of people were accused, convicted, and sent to jail, even though there was little or no empirical evidence to support the allegations (Lanning, 1992). Here, too, the stu-dents, with little emotional investment and, thus, little disso-nance, draw the reasonable conclusion that scientific literacy, evidence, and critical thinking are good things, because they prevent harm.

We then discuss the nature of science as a systematic, objective, and reliable means of evaluating testable claims. Mindful of SJT, we do not dismiss other ways of knowing (e.g., intuition, spirituality) but highlight the strengths and successes of the scientific approach, including its unique reliance on evidence, skepticism, logic, multiple working hypotheses, and Occam’s razor, that is, the foundations of science. We stress the importance of self-correction, a char-acteristic unique to science yet frequently misunderstood by students as a weakness. And, using examples, we introduce students to the pernicious effects of dissonance, dishonesty, and bias as impediments to understanding.

The next section of the course deals with the limits to per-ception and memory mentioned earlier, topics critical for un-derstanding why anecdotal evidence, eyewitness accounts, and even personal experiences are insufficient for accepting a claim. By this point in the course, students are beginning to understand Richard Feynman’s famous quote “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool” (Feynman and Leighton, 1985, p. 343). If their own perceptions and memories can be faulty, might not some of their opinions be too?

The remainder of the course covers content more typical of an integrative science course, including but not limited to cosmology, geology, cell biology, and ecology, with some-what atypical side trips to explore the paranormal and in-vestigate alternative medical therapies. But even here, we attempt to capture the nonmajors’ attention by having them analyze claims they find engaging; they learn a lot about plate tectonics, for example, by investigating the claim that a continent, Atlantis in this case, can disappear.

The theory of evolution is, by design, reserved for the last week of the course. By then, most students recognize the importance of evidence and logic and critical thinking. They have sharpened the tools in their “baloney detection kit” (Sagan, 1996) and understand that it is not just snake-oil salesmen who market baloney but that we are pretty good at selling it to ourselves. With latitudes of acceptance broad-ened, they are ready to tackle the scientific theory many find the most discomforting of all.

METHODS

Institutional SettingOur experiment was conducted at SHSU, a public, doctoral research university located in Huntsville, Texas. Founded in 1879, it offers 138 bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. With the exception of an underrepresentation of Asians, the ethnic composition of SHSU broadly matches that of the United States, with 57% of its 19,000-plus students self-reporting as Caucasian/white, 18% as Hispanic, 17% as African American/black, 1% as Asian, and 4% as either multiracial or other ethnicities. Two percent are classified




Vol. 14, Fall 2015 14:ar30, 5

responses on the MATE, and they were informed that their answers would not be graded. However, students were still able to earn rewards equivalent to those of students taking the CAT based on their performance on the locally devel-oped assessment tool.

Assessment Reliability and ValidityArguments regarding the effectiveness of the FoS course de-mand both reliability and validity. While these concepts are frequently ignored (Campbell and Nehm, 2013), researchers who address the issues of reliability and validity often mis-take them as required properties of one’s assessment tools rather than, correctly, as characteristics of the interpretations we make from the tools’ results (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Messick, 1995; Brown, 2005; Campbell and Nehm, 2013). The reliability and validity of interpretations based on the CAT have strong evidentiary support (Tennessee Technological University, 2010; Stein and Haynes, 2011; Stein et al., 2007, 2010).

Interpretations based on the MATE also have demon-strated reliability and validity, at least for certain popula-tions (Rutledge and Warden, 1999; Rutledge and Sadler, 2007). A recent study (Wagler and Wagler, 2013), however, found the MATE lacked construct validity for Hispanic ele-mentary education majors and questioned the utility of the tool for assessing student acceptance of evolutionary theory. Our results do not support this criticism, an argument we present more fully in our Discussion.

students (Moore and Cotner, 2009; Nadelson and Souther-land, 2010; Peker et al., 2010; Kim and Nehm, 2011; Abraham et al., 2012).

Beginning in the Fall of 2010, approximately half the stu-dents in each of the experimental and comparison courses were assessed pre- and postcourse using the CAT, the other half with the MATE. The pretests were administered during the second week of the term, while the posttests were given in the penultimate week of classes. Instructors teaching both the FoS and the traditional courses agreed on identical in-centives each semester, with the exception of Fall 2010: as no credit (baseline data before creation of the FoS) or as extra credit/part of the course grade thereafter (Table 1). Details regarding how the incentive was applied are provided in the example course syllabus in our Supplemental Materials.

All CAT exams were graded using a modified rubric that enabled the exams to be graded quickly. These scores were used to assign performance points to the students. A subset of all the CAT exams from each course was randomly se-lected for formal grading using the rubric developed by the Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning at TTU. Based on the grading procedures established by the center, graders were blind to the identity of the student, whether an exam was a pretest or posttest, and the treatment group. Results of the formal grading are reported herein.

The MATE was coupled with a locally developed assess-ment not presented in this publication. Because the responses on the MATE assessment represent personal opinions and attitudes, no incentives were provided to students for their

Table 1. CAT scores in traditional versus experimental gen ed science courses, by semester

Course Treatmenta Term N Designb Incentivec

CAT pre score

CAT post score tactual (df)

Pre–post p value

Effect size

1 Introductory geographyd T Fall 2008 36 Post only None 15.002 Introductory geologye T Fall 2008 40 Post only None 15.053 Introductory biologyf T Spring 2009 37 Post only None 14.664 Introductory geographyd T Spring 2009 39 Post only None 14.915 Introductory environmental

studiesgT Fall 2010 10 Pre and post EC 17.07 16.90 t(9) = 0.232 ns

6 Introductory physicsh T Fall 2011 16 Pre and post EC 13.94 14.63 t(15) = −0.696 ns7 Introductory chemistryi T Fall 2011 25 Pre and post EC 13.16 13.68 t(24) = −0.586 ns8 FoSj E Fall 2009 53 Pre and post PoC 16.03 19.77 t(52) = −5.385 <0.001 +0.719 FoSj E Spring 2010 53 Pre and post PoC 17.95 22.43 t(52) = −5.872 <0.001 +0.7610 FoSj E Fall 2010 47 Pre and post PoC 15.52 19.98 t(46) = −4.848 <0.001 +0.3611 FoSj E Spring 2011 69 Pre and post PoC 14.95 19.60 t(68) = −8.999 <0.001 +0.8412 FoSj E Fall 2011 25 Pre and post EC 13.41 17.75 t(24) = −3.984 <0.001 +0.8513 FoSj E Fall 2012 25 Pre and post EC 12.25 16.16 t(24) = −3.310 <0.01 +0.83

aT = traditional (i.e., comparison) gen ed science course for nonmajors; E = experimental FoS course.bBefore the introduction of the FoS course in the Fall of 2009, the CAT assessment was conducted only once, at the end of the semester.cEC = extra credit; PoC = part of the course grade.dGEOG 1301: Weather and Climate.eGEOL 1304: Historical Geology.fBIOL 1308: Contemporary Biology.gBIOL 1301: Environmental Science.hPHYS 1305: Fundamentals of Physics.iCHEM 1306: Inorganic and Environmental Chemistry.jCross-listed as both BIOL 1436 and GEOG 1436: Foundations of Science.





FoS course. Similarly, we have posttest MATE scores from 1250 undergraduates, with 417 representing the three tra-ditional courses and 833 from the five semesters of the FoS course.

RESULTS

Critical ThinkingFoS Experiment versus Traditional Gen Ed Science Courses. Our results are robust and consistent; quite simply, students who complete the experimental FoS course show significant improvement in their critical-thinking skills, as measured by the CAT, while students who complete a tra-ditional gen ed science course do not. In no semester, for example, did students completing a traditional course show improvement in their critical-thinking scores (all p values > 0.49; Table 1), while students completing the experimental course showed highly significant improvement each semes-ter (all p values < 0.01, Cohen’s d typically > 0.70; Table 1). An analysis of pooled end-of-course (posttest only) CAT scores for all six semesters of the FoS course (Table 1, rows 8–13) versus the pooled posttest CAT scores for all six tradition-al gen ed science courses (Table 1, rows 1–7) reinforce this finding; students completing the FoS course scored signifi-cantly higher (19.76 ± 0.35) than did students completing a traditional (14.83 ± 0.37) introductory science course for non-majors (t(473) = 4.93, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.89; Figure 1A). A comparison of our pooled pre- versus posttest CAT scores for all six semesters of the FoS course (Table 1, rows 8–13) versus the pooled CAT scores for the three different gen ed science courses (introductory environmental studies, intro-ductory physics, and introductory chemistry) for which we had pre- and postcourse CAT test scores (Table 1, rows 5–7) show similar results. Students who completed the FoS course showed highly significant improvement in critical thinking (pretest = 15.45 ± 0.34, posttest = 19.76 ± 35; t(271) = 13.43, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.76), while there was no change in the critical thinking scores for students completing a traditional course (pretest = 14.17 ± 0.64, posttest = 14.61 ± 0.72; t(50) = 0.80, p = 0.43; Figure 1B).

The slightly higher pretest CAT scores for students in the experimental course relative to students taking a traditional course (15.45 vs. 14.61, respectively, Figure 1B) might suggest the significant pre versus post improvement in the former represents a cohort rather than a treatment effect; that is, stu-dents selecting an experimental course like FoS may possess better critical-thinking skills to begin with, generating more improvement over the course of a semester regardless of the science course. To assess this, we ran an ANCOVA on the postcourse CAT scores using each student’s precourse CAT score as a covariate. Results adjusting for each student’s en-try-level critical-thinking ability still showed a highly signif-icant effect of our experimental treatment (Figure 1C). That is, students who complete the FoS course show significantly better postcourse CAT scores than their peers who complete a traditional course, even when differences in students’ pre-course critical-thinking abilities are taken into account (mean adjusted postcourse critical-thinking score in the FoS course experimental course = 19.64 ± 0.65, mean adjusted postcourse critical-thinking score in traditional courses = 15.26 ± 0.28; F(1, 320) = 38.29, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.339).

Statistical AnalysesPretest versus posttest changes in student scores on the CAT were analyzed using a matched-pairs t test. Personal identi-fiers were not available in our MATE assessments, prevent-ing the use of a matched-pairs t test; we therefore used a less powerful independent-samples t test when analyzing the MATE results. Assessments of end-of-semester scores in our experimental course (the FoS) versus those in comparison courses (traditional gen ed science courses) were also made using t tests for independent samples, as were analyses of our FoS results versus the national norms available from the Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning at TTU. The sample data in all tests were examined for violations of the parametric assumptions of normality and variance equality. Where needed, t tests assuming unequal sample variances were applied, while data violating the assumption of normality were log-transformed. In the few cases in which transformations failed to generate a normal distribution, we reduced our α value from 0.05 to 0.025 (Keppel, 1982). An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) compared the postcourse CAT score for the FoS course with traditional courses while accounting for a student’s entering ability by using his or her precourse CAT score as the covariate. The ANCOVA assumptions of regression-slope homogeneity and treat-ment-covariate independence were met. As a further aid to understanding the strength of our results (Maher et al., 2013), we also report our effect sizes (Cohen’s d). Results presented in the text are mean ± 1 SE.

Sample SizesCAT. We have CAT results for eight semesters (Table 1), be-ginning in the Fall of 2008 and ending in the Fall of 2012 (the CAT assessment tool was not used in the Spring of 2012). A total of 475 SHSU undergraduate students have been assessed via the CAT; 203 students representing our com-parison group from six different traditional gen ed science courses (with one course, introductory geography, being as-sessed twice); and 272 students representing our experimen-tal treatment consisting of six different semesters of our FoS course. During the first two semesters of this experiment, we administered the CAT once at the end of the semester, and only in our traditional gen ed science courses, restricting us to a “postcourse” comparison on the full data set. Begin-ning with the first offering of our experimental course in the Fall of 2009, we administered the CAT both at the beginning and again at the end of the semester to three different tradi-tional gen ed science courses and six semesters of the FoS course, permitting us to use a more powerful “pre- versus postcourse” evaluation comparing the effectiveness of our experimental FoS with traditional gen ed science courses. We also compared the CAT performance of both treatment groups with the national norms for students attending 4-yr colleges and universities, a database of nearly 39,300 stu-dents available from the Center for Assessment & Improve-ment of Learning at TTU.

MATE. We have MATE results for five semesters, beginning in the Fall of 2010 and ending in the Fall of 2012. We have pretest MATE scores from 1443 undergraduate students; 561 from three different traditional gen ed science courses and 882 representing five different semesters of our experimental




Vol. 14, Fall 2015 14:ar30, 7

they were freshmen or sophomores (i.e., lower-division students), and for 106 students who completed the course when they were juniors or seniors (i.e., upper-division stu-dents). Lower-division students enrolling in the FoS course have significantly higher pretest CAT scores (14.80 ± 0.40) than do lower-division students nationally (13.66 ± 0.05, t(165) = 2.827, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.22) and highly sig-nificantly better CAT scores (19.54 ± 0.41, t(165) = 14.305, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.13) in their posttest CAT at the end of the semester. Indeed, the average posttest CAT score for lower-division FoS students is comparable to the national mean (19.04 ± 0.05) for upper-division (junior/senior) stu-dents (t165 = 1.063, p = 0.289; Figure 2A).

The results for our upper-division students are quite different. Pretest and posttest CAT scores of upper-di-vision FoS students (again pooled over all six semesters, rows 8–13 in Table 1) compared with national norms show that upper-division FoS students have pretest CAT scores (16.48 ± 0.60) significantly below the national aver-age (19.04 ± 0.05) for juniors and seniors (t(105) = −4.287, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = −0.42); this deficit is erased, however,

Lower- versus Upper-Division Students and Comparison with National Norms. Analyzing our results by class stand-ing not only presents a more detailed picture of where our intervention might be most effective but also permits a com-parison with national norms. We have pre- and posttest CAT scores for 166 students who completed the FoS course when

Figure 1. Students who complete the experimental FoS course show significant improvement in their critical-thinking scores, as mea-sured by the CAT, while students who complete a traditional gen ed science course do not. Histograms show means + 1 SE. (A) Pooled end-of-course (posttest) CAT scores for all six semesters of the FoS course (Table 1, rows 8–13) vs. the pooled posttest CAT scores for all six traditional gen ed science courses (Table 1, rows 1–7). (B) Pooled pre- vs. posttest CAT scores for all six semesters of the FoS course (Table 1, rows 8–13) vs. the pooled CAT scores for the three different gen ed science courses (introductory environmental studies, intro-ductory physics, and introductory chemistry) for which we had pre- and postcourse CAT test scores (Table 1, rows 5–7). (C) Posttest CAT scores adjusted by pretest CAT scores for the same data set used in B.

Figure 2. Non–science students selecting to enroll in one of their gen ed science courses as entry-level freshmen or sophomores may represent a different subset of students than those who delay tak-ing such core courses until they are juniors or seniors, but both co-horts show highly significant improvement in their critical-thinking ability after completing the FoS course. Histograms show means + 1 SE. (A) Pretest and posttest CAT scores of lower-division (LD; i.e., freshman/sophomore) FoS students (pooled over all six semesters, rows 8–13 in Table 1) compared with national norms. (B) Pretest and posttest CAT scores of upper-division (UD; i.e., junior/senior) FoS students (again pooled over all six semesters, rows 8–13 in Table 1) compared with national norms.





of evolution (pretest = 66.17 ± 0.45, posttest = 75.45 ± 0.49; t(1686.15) = 13.93, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.67), while there was no change in the acceptance of evolution for students com-pleting a traditional course (pretest = 65.27 ± 0.56, posttest = 64.91 ± 0.71; t(976) = 0.40, p = 0.69; Figure 3).

DISCUSSION

Critical ThinkingOur results demonstrate that an introductory, gen ed science course for nonmajors, a course focusing on the nature of science rather than just its facts, can lead to highly signifi-cant improvements, with large effect sizes, in the ability of college students to think critically. Most college courses do not significantly improve CAT performance in a pre/post design; substantive gains are typically observed only at the program/institutional level (Center for Assessment & Im-provement of Learning, TTU, unpublished data). Moreover, results from more than 200 institutions using the CAT show the average improvement in critical thinking observed over 4 yr of a typical undergraduate curriculum is 26% (Harris et al., 2014); students who successfully completed the FoS course improved their CAT scores by almost 28% (15.45 vs. 19.76; Figure 1B). In short, students who complete a single-semester FoS course demonstrate levels of improve-ment in their critical-thinking skills typically requiring mul-tiple years of college experience, demonstrating that it is possible to teach higher-order thinking skills to nonmajors in a single science course they are required to take, many begrudgingly.

A finer-grained analysis of our results further illustrates the need to rethink how we are teaching our gen ed science courses. The pretest CAT score for our lower-division stu-dents, pooled over all six semesters, was significantly higher than the national average for this age group (Figure 2A). By the end of the semester, our lower-division students’ critical-thinking scores moved well beyond the national norm for freshmen/sophomores and were comparable to

Figure 3. Students who complete the experimental FoS course show a significant increase in their acceptance of evolution, as mea-sured by the MATE, while students who complete a traditional gen ed science course do not. Pooled pre- vs. posttest MATE scores for five semesters of the FoS course (Table 2, rows 4–8) vs. the pooled MATE scores for the three different gen ed science courses (intro-ductory environmental studies, introductory physics, and introduc-tory chemistry) for which we had pre- and postcourse MATE scores (Table 2, rows 1–3). Histograms show means + 1 SE.

Table 2. MATE scores in traditional versus experimental gen ed science courses, by semester

Course Treatmenta Term

Pre Post

tactual (df)Pre–post p value

Effect sizeN MATE score N MATE score

1 Introductory environmental studiesb

T Fall 2010 33 70.64 28 68.00 t(59) = 0.579 ns

2 Introductory physicsc T Fall 2011 129 67.25 92 66.48 t(219) = 0.423 ns3 Introductory chemistryd T Fall 2011 399 64.18 297 64.13 t(694) = 0.047 ns4 FoSe E Fall 2010 136 64.57 137 74.15 t(265) = −5.940f <0.001 +0.725 FoSe E Spring 2011 143 68.39 136 76.21 t(277) = −4.792 <0.001 +0.576 FoSe E Fall 2011 233 67.31 216 78.46 t(447) = −8.678 <0.001 +0.827 FoSe E Spring 2012 239 66.30 226 76.16 t(463) = −7.914 <0.001 +0.738 FoSe E Fall 2012 131 63.17 118 69.25 t(247) = −3.396 = 0.001 +0.43

aT = traditional (i.e., comparison) gen ed science course for nonmajors; E = experimental FoS course.bBIOL 1301: Environmental Science.cPHYS 1305: Fundamentals of Physics.dCHEM 1306: Inorganic and Environmental Chemistry.eCross-listed as both BIOL 1436 and GEOG 1436: Foundations of Science.fThis comparison required a t test for unequal sample variances: the adjusted df = 264.94.

after one semester in our experimental course (posttest FoS CAT = 20.12 ± 0.63; t(105) = 1.717, p = 0.090; Figure 2B).

Student Acceptance of the Theory of EvolutionResults on the MATE parallel those from the CAT; in no se-mester did students completing a traditional course show improvement in their acceptance of evolutionary theory (all p values > 0.27; Table 2), while students completing the exper-imental course showed highly significant improvement each semester (all p values ≤ 0.001, all Cohen’s d > 0.43; Table 2). A pooled analysis comparing students across all semesters in the experimental course with students from the three differ-ent traditional courses further highlights the success of the ex-perimental approach; students who completed the FoS course showed highly significant improvement in their acceptance




Vol. 14, Fall 2015 14:ar30, 9

comparable studies suggest we have much to learn about the factors influencing student acceptance of evolutionary theory. To contribute, we plan additional analyses, mining our database to examine the effects of gender, ethnicity, high school grade point average, and student attitudes on the MATE and on the CAT.

Instructors (who are also colleagues and friends) in the traditional gen ed science courses that served as our com-parison group were disappointed their students showed no improvement in critical thinking after a semester of science. But, they argued reasonably, why should we expect student acceptance of evolutionary theory to improve in introduc-tory gen ed chemistry or physics classes, given that biolog-ical evolution is not discussed in such courses? Four points are relevant, the last being most important. First, we suggest that all college graduates, science majors or not, should ap-preciate how the term “theory,” used scientifically, differs from its conversational definition. Second, evolutionary theory was covered in the environmental studies course (Table 2) in which we used the MATE, yet students still failed to demonstrate improvement in their acceptance of the the-ory in this traditionally taught gen ed science course. Third, even though evolution is a topic we address explicitly in the FoS course, it is covered during the last week of the semester, the week following the posttest administration of the MATE.

The most important issue, however, relates to what the MATE may be measuring. Several authors have argued that the MATE more likely measures an individual’s knowledge about evolution rather than his or her acceptance of the theory (Smith, 2010a; Wagler and Wagler, 2013). And while it is generally presumed that some content knowledge is required for a student to accept evolution as the best expla-nation of biological diversity, evidence also suggests that dispositional change may be required before a student is willing to entertain the theory (Sinatra et al., 2003; Smith, 2010a,b). Whether the MATE measures an individual’s content knowledge about evolution or his or her disposi-tion toward the theory is beyond the scope of this analysis. Our results, however, are robust; a course focusing on the nature of science and applying SJT leads to significantly improved engagement of the non–science college student with evolution (see also Pigliucci, 2007; Lombrozo et al., 2008).

Assessment Validity, RevisitedWagler and Wagler (2013) criticized the construct validity and, thus, the generalizability of the MATE for popula-tions other than the high school teachers used to originally test the tool’s validity (Rutledge and Warden, 1999). The Waglers found, for example, that the MATE lacked con-struct validity for their sample of Hispanic college students majoring in elementary education. Construct validity is the degree to which a test actually measures the mental attri-bute it claims to measure (Brown, 2000); for the MATE, the attribute is thought to be an individual’s acceptance of the theory of evolution (Rutledge and Warden, 1999). One tech-nique for assessing construct validity uses factor analyses with structural equation modeling to identify the number of dimensions of the construct; if a significant unifying di-mension or dimensions cannot be identified, the tool may be suspect; this was the approach used to demonstrate that

the CAT scores achieved by juniors and seniors nationwide (Figure 2A). This is the good news.

The pattern for our upper-division students, however, is more worrisome, as their pretest CAT average is signifi-cantly lower than the national mean for juniors and seniors (Figure 2B). Given that our lower-division students start with significantly better CAT scores than their peers nationally, results showing that our juniors and seniors are significantly worse (before taking the FoS course) than their countrywide counterparts might suggest our institutional curriculum degrades rather than improves a student’s critical-thinking skills. An alternative interpretation is that the non–science students who choose, as freshmen or sophomores, to take one of their science requirements, especially an experimental course like the FoS course, represent a cohort different from the students who delay taking their core science courses until near the end of their undergraduate careers. The for-mer may be less science-phobic than the latter and, thus, more practiced at and receptive to evidentiary thinking. If this interpretation is correct, as science educators, we need to embrace pedagogies that connect with our more anxious students, lest their experiences further alienate them from science as a way of knowing. The approaches adopted in the FoS course may be part of the solution, as the significant deficit in critical thinking we observe in upper-division stu-dents, compared with national norms, is gone by the end of the semester (Figure 2B).

Student Acceptance of Evolutionary TheoryResults also demonstrate that our experimental course led to significant improvements, again with large effect sizes, in the willingness of students to engage with the theory of evolu-tion. But to what degree? Rutledge and Sadler (2007), authors of the MATE, have identified five levels of acceptance associ-ated with their instrument: very high (89–100), high (76–88), moderate (65–75), low (53–64), and very low (<52). At the beginning of the semester, students in the FoS course exhib-ited, on average, borderline low to moderate (66.17 ± 0.45) scores on the MATE, improving to the boundary between moderate and high acceptance by the end of the course (75.45 ± 0.49). While we hoped for greater improvement, the end-of-course MATE scores for FoS students are comparable with those of both high school biology teachers in Indiana (77.59 ± 0.84; Rutledge and Warden, 2000) and preservice high school science teachers in Korea (73.79 ± 1.00; Kim and Nehm, 2011). A study of introductory biology students (both majors and nonmajors) attending a public university in Wisconsin who completed a special module exploring mac-roevolution and its misconceptions (Abraham et al., 2012), also employing a pretest versus posttest design, deserves special mention given the similarities to our experiment. The average postintervention MATE score for the Wisconsin stu-dents (75.0 ± 0.52) was similar to the average post-FoS MATE score for students in this study (75.45 ± 0.49). The preinter-vention scores for students in the two studies, however, were dramatically different (70.8 ± 1.14 for nonmajors, 73.0 ± 0.58 for majors in the Wisconsin study; 66.17 ± 0.45 for the non-majors in this study), as were the effect sizes of the two inter-ventions (Cohen’s d for Wisconsin = 0.19; Cohen’s d for this study = 0.67). The similarities in postintervention scores giv-en the dissimilarities in preintervention scores of these two





the MATE lacked construct validity for preservice teachers (Wagler and Wagler, 2013). We applied the same technique to our MATE results and similarly found that no model, either uni- or multidimensional, could be fitted to the data (unpublished data). But researchers should never rely on a single method for assessing the validity of their interpre-tations (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Messick, 1995; Brown, 2000, 2005; Campbell and Nehm, 2013). Two related exper-imental approaches for assessing the construct validity of a test are intervention studies and differential-groups studies (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Messick, 1995; Brown, 2000, 2005). In the former, a group is tested before and following their exposure to the construct; significant improvement demonstrates the construct validity of the intervention. Dif-ferential-groups studies employ two groups, one presented with the construct, the other not; significantly better scores by the informed group similarly demonstrate the validity of the training. We used both approaches in this study; the “construct” was a novel gen ed science course (the FoS) fo-cusing on the nature of science rather than just its facts (for more details please see “Expanded Course Rationale and Structure” in our Supplemental Materials). Students who completed the training demonstrated, over multiple sec-tions of the course spanning multiple years, highly sig-nificant improvement both in their critical-thinking skills (as measured by the CAT; Table 1 and associated figures) and in their willingness to engage the theory of evolution (assessed with the MATE; Table 2 and associated figures). Students who did not receive this training, those who instead completed a traditional gen ed science course, showed no improvement on either metric. While validity is never absolute (Messick, 1995; Brown, 2005; Campbell and Nehm, 2013), we argue that the power and consistency of our results are strong validation of the success of the inter-vention.

CONCLUSIONS

Students completing the FoS course significantly improve their critical-thinking skills. Given the ineffectiveness of gen ed sciences courses in particular (Impey et al., 2011, 2012) and the college curriculum more broadly (Arum and Roksa, 2010, 2014) to produce such change, we are proud to share our successes. But we recognize the improvements we demonstrate, in both critical thinking and in the will-ingness of students to engage with scientific ideas they often reject, are a snapshot in time, an improvement over a single semester. Our hope, of course, is that students completing an experimental course like the FoS would, upon graduation, be more scientifically literate as adults, that they would understand and value science as a way of knowing, and that they could digest a science-related story in the Washington Post (Miller, 1998). As a single litmus test, would it not be wonderful if all college graduates, not just our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics stu-dents, had the confidence and the ability to make intelligent decisions about whether or not to vaccinate their children? We all depend on an educated citizenry with the skills to make, quite literally, just such life-and-death decisions. We must design and teach our nonmajors science courses to-ward this end.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was supported through the Quality Enhancement Plan at SHSU. We thank Brent Rahlwes, Cheramie Trahan, Samantha Martin, and Kelsey Pearman, outstanding teaching assistants who not only led the case studies during the lab sections associated with the course but also enthusiastically helped improve the material; Joe Hill, for contributing course materials and teaching a section of the class; Tim Tripp, for having taught several sections of the course; Rita Caso, for her sound advice and unwavering support in her ca-pacity as director of the Office of Institutional Research & Assess-ment at SHSU; and Cory Kohn, Louise Mead, Ross Nehm, and two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable suggestions on an earlier version of this article. All electronic data files (i.e., xlsx and sav) and reports (i.e., pdf) associated with the CAT are stored on a limited-access, secure FTP server administered by the Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning at TTU. The physical copy of each CAT test has been digitized (pdf) and stored on a limited-ac-cess, secure hard drive; all physical tests were then destroyed. The MATE data are stored on a limited-access, secure server adminis-tered by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness at SHSU. Approval for this study was granted by the Internal Review Board Committee (#2013-04-7942) of SHSU.

REFERENCES

Abraham JK, Perez KE, Downey N, Herron JC, Meir E (2012). Short lesson plan associated with increased acceptance of evolutionary theory and potential change in three alternate conceptions of macro-evolution in undergraduate students. CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 152–164.

Alberts B (2005). A wakeup call for science faculty. Cell 123, 739–741.

Alberts B (2009). Redefining science education. Science 323, 437.

Alters BJ, Nelson CE (2002). Perspective: teaching evolution in high-er education. Evolution 56, 1891–1901.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Project 2061–Benchmarks for Science Literacy: A Tool for Curriculum Reform, Washington, DC.

AAAS (2010). Vision and Change: A Call to Action, Washington, DC.

Arum R, Roksa J (2010). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Arum R, Roksa J (2014). Aspiring Adults Adrift: Tentative Transi-tions of College Graduates, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Arum R, Roksa J, Cho E (2011). Improving Undergraduate Learning: Findings and Policy Recommendations from the SSRC-CLA Longi-tudinal Project, Brooklyn, NY: Social Science Research Council.

Benoit WL Persuasion, Communication Institute for Online Scholar-ship. www.cios.org/encyclopedia/persuasion/Esocial_judgment _1theory.htm (accessed 6 February 2015).

Bernstein DA, Penner LA, Clarke-Stewart A, Roy EJ (2006). Psychol-ogy, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bok D (2006). Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should be Learning More, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brown JD (2000). What is construct validity? Shiken: JALT Test Eval SIG Newsl 4, 8–12.

Brown JD (2005). Testing in Language Programs: A Comprehensive Guide to English Language Assessment, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Campbell CE, Nehm RH (2013). A critical analysis of assessment quality in genomics and bioinformatics education research. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 530–541.

Carmel JH, Yezierski EJ (2013). Are we keeping the promise? Inves-tigation of students’ critical thinking growth. J Coll Sci Teach 42, 71–81.




Vol. 14, Fall 2015 14:ar30, 11

Lombrozo T, Thanukos A, Weisberg M (2008). The importance of un-derstanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. Evol Educ Outreach 1, 290–298.

Maher JM, Markey JC, Ebert-May D (2013). The other half of the story: effect size analysis in quantitative research. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 345–351.

Messick S (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol 50, 741–749.

Miller JD (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Underst Sci 7, 203–223.

Miller JD (2012). What colleges and universities need to do to ad-vance civic scientific literacy and preserve American democra-cy. Liberal Education 98. www.aacu.org/publications-research/ periodicals/what-colleges-and-universities-need-do-advance -civic-scientific (accessed 7 February 2015).

Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S (2006). Public acceptance of evolu-tion. Science 313, 765–766.

Mnookin S (2011). The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Momsen JL, Long TM, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cog-nitive skills. CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 435–440.

Moore R, Cotner S (2009). Educational malpractice: the impact of including creationism in high school biology courses. Evol Educ Outreach 2, 95–100.

Morrison D (2011). Science denialism: evolution and climate change. Reports Natl Center Sci Educ 31, 1–10.

Nadelson LS, Southerland SA (2010). Examining the interaction of acceptance and understanding: how does the relationship change with a focus on macroevolution? Evol Educ Outreach 3, 82–88.

Nathan D, Snedeker M (2001). Satan’s Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt, Lincoln, NE: Author’s Choice Press.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineer-ing, and Institute of Medicine (2010). Rising above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation (2014). Science and Engineering Indi-cators 2014, Arlington, VA: National Science Board.

Nelson CE (2008). Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and con-fronting misconceptions. Integr Comp Biol 48, 213–225.

Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133, E835–E842.

Offit PA (2011). Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All, New York: Basic.

Pascarella ET, Blaich C, Martin GL, Hanson JM (2011). How robust are the findings of academically adrift? Change 43, 20–24.

Peker D, Comert G, Kence A (2010). Three decades of anti-evolu-tion campaign and its results: Turkish undergraduates’ acceptance and understanding of the biological evolution theory. Sci Educ 19, 739–755.

Pigliucci M (2007). The evolution-creation wars: why teaching more science just is not enough. McGill J Educ 42, 285–306.

Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA (1982). Accom-modation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci Educ 66, 211–227.

Reardon S (2011). Climate change sparks battles in classroom. Science 333, 688–689.

Rowe MP (2010). Tragic choices: autism, measles, and the MMR vaccine. In: Science Stories: Using Case Studies to Teach Critical

Cawthorne N (2004). Witch Hunt: History of a Persecution, London: Chartwell.

Chabris C, Simons D (2010). The Invisible Gorilla, New York: Crown.

Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psych Bull 52, 281–302.

Ebert-May D, Derting TL, Hodder J, Momsen JL, Long TM, Jardeleza SE (2011). What we say is not what we do: effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience 61, 550–558.

Ede A (2000). Has science education become an enemy of scientific rationality? Skeptical Inquirer 24, 48–51.

Erwin P (2014). Attitudes and Persuasion, New York: Psychology Press.

Eve RA, Dunn D (1990). Psychic powers, astrology and creation-ism in the classroom? Evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology and life science teachers. Am Biol Teach 52, 10–21.

Facione PA (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Con-sensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Facione PA (2015). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts, San Jose, CA: California Academic Press. www.insightassessment .com/Resources/Tools-For-Teaching-For-and-About-Thinking/ Critical-Thinking-What-It-Is-and-Why-It-Counts/Critical-Thinking -What-It-Is-and-Why-It-Counts-PDF (accessed 21 April 2015).

Facione PA, Sánchez CA, Facione NC, Gainen J (1995). The disposi-tion toward critical thinking. J Gen Educ 44, 1–25.

Feynman RP, Leighton R (1985). “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character, New York: W.W. Norton.

Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student perfor-mance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410–8415.

Harris K, Stein B, Haynes A, Lisic E, Leming K (2014). Identifying courses that improve students’ critical thinking skills using the CAT instrument: a case study. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Interna-tional Joint Conferences on Computer, Information, System Scienc-es, and Engineering 10, 1–4.

Hazen RM (2002). Why should you be scientifically literate? ActionBioscience. www.actionbioscience.org/education/hazen.html (accessed 7 February 2015).

Hewitt PG, Lyons SA, Suchocki JA, Yeh J (2013). Conceptual Inte-grated Science, 2nd ed., Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Impey C, Buxner S, Antonellis J (2012). Non-scientific beliefs among undergraduate students. Astron Educ Rev 11, 1–12.

Impey C, Buxner S, Antonellis J, Johnson E, King C (2011). A twen-ty-year survey of science literacy among college undergraduates. J Coll Sci Teach 40, 31–37.

Johnson AC (2007). Unintended consequences: how science profes-sors discourage women of color. Sci Educ 91, 805–821.

Johnson M, Pigliucci M (2004). Is knowledge of science associated with higher skepticism of pseudoscientific claims? Am Biol Teach 66, 536–548.

Keppel G (1982). Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kim SY, Nehm RH (2011). A cross-cultural comparison of Korean and American science teachers’ views of evolution and the nature of science. Int J Sci Educ 33, 197–227.

Kuhn D (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Sci Educ 77, 319–337.

Lanning KV (1992). Investigator’s Guide to Allegations of “Ritual” Child Abuse, Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation.





Thinking, ed. CF Herreid, NA Schiller, and KF Herreid, Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/ detail.asp?case_id = 576&id = 576 (accessed 7 February 2015).

Rowe MP (2015). Crazy about cryptids! An ecological hunt for Nessie and other legendary creatures. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ collection/detail.asp?case_id=779&id=779 (accessed 26 June 2015).

Rutherford FJ, Ahlgren A (1990). Science for All Americans, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Rutledge ML, Sadler KC (2007). Reliability of the measure of accep-tance of the theory of evolution (MATE) instrument with university students. Am Biol Teach 69, 332–335.

Rutledge ML, Warden MA (1999). The development and validation of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument. Sch Sci Math 99, 13–18.

Rutledge ML, Warden MA (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of science and high school biology teachers: critical relationships. Am Biol Teach 62, 23–31.

Sagan C (1996). The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, New York: Ballantine.

Sam Houston State University (2009). QEP: SHSU: Foun-dations of Science. www.shsu.edu/qep/documents/ QualityEnhancementPlanCombined.pdf (accessed 7 February 2015).

Schick T, Vaughn L (2014). How to Think about Weird Things: Criti-cal Thinking for a New Age, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Seymour E, Hewitt NM (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why Under-graduates Leave the Sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview.

Sinatra G, Brem S, Evans EM (2008). Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evo-lution. Evol Educ Outreach 1, 189–195.

Sinatra GM, Southerland SA, McConaughy F, Demastes JW (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. J Res Sci Teach 40, 510–528.

Smith MU (2010a). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: I. Philosophical/epistemological issues. Sci Educ 19, 523–538.

Smith MU (2010b). Current status of research in teaching and learn-ing evolution: II. Pedagogical issues. Sci Educ 19, 539–571.

Snyder TD, Dillow SA (2013). Digest of Education Statistics, 2012, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Stein B, Haynes A (2011). Engaging faculty in the assessment and improvement of students’ critical thinking using the critical think-ing assessment test. Change 43, 44–49.

Stein B, Haynes A, Redding M, Ennis T, Cecil M (2007). Assessing critical thinking in STEM and beyond. In: Innovations in E-Learning, Instruction Technology, Assessment, and Engineering Education, ed. M Iskander, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Stein B, Haynes A, Redding M, Harris K, Tylka M, Lisic E (2010). Faculty driven assessment of critical thinking: national dissemi-nation of the CAT instrument. In: Technological Developments in Networking, Education and Automation, ed. K Elleithy, T Sobh, M Iskander, V Kapila, MA Karim, and A Mahmood, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Tavris C, Aronson E (2007). Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me), Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Tennessee Technological University (2010). CAT Instrument Technical Information. www.tntech.edu/files/cat/reports/CAT _Technical_Information_V7.pdf (accessed 7 February 2015).

Trefil J, Hazen RM (2013). The Sciences: An Integrated Approach, 7th ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Van Gelder T (2005). Teaching critical thinking. Coll Teach 45, 41–46.

Verhey SD (2005). The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes toward creationism and evolution. BioScience 55, 996–1003.

Wagler A, Wagler R (2013). Addressing the lack of measurement in-variance for the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution. Int J Sci Educ 35, 2278–2298.

Wakefield A, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and perva-sive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351, 637–641.

Walker WR, Hoekstra SJ, Vogl RJ (2002). Science education is no guarantee of skepticism. Skeptic 9, 24–27.



Supplemental Material CBE—Life Sciences Education

et al.S SS SSSSS Rowe

1

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 1 2 1. Expanded Course Rationale and Structure 3 4 Jon D. Miller, the Director of the International Center for the Advancement of Scientific 5 Literacy, wrote, “the healthy functioning of democracy depends crucially upon the 6 existence of a literate public; and in modern industrial societies, true democracy must 7 embrace scientific literacy (Miller, 1998). We share this concern, as the lack of scientific 8 literacy adversely affects our ability, as a society, to make informed decisions about 9 science-related issues (Impey et al., 2012) such as global climate change, loss of 10 biodiversity, resource use, and the efficacy of vaccines. And, as discussed in the main 11 article, this situation also makes it difficult for people to judge the merits of well-12 established scientific theories, including the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang 13 Theory. 14 15 In order to address these issues, the Foundations of Science (FoS) course was designed to 16 focus on the development of critical thinking skills and basic scientific literacy defined – 17 consistent with Miller’s definition – as understanding key scientific terminology, 18 concepts, and theories and, most importantly, understanding science as a reliable way of 19 knowing about the natural world based on its use of critical thinking and logical 20 arguments, empirical evidence, skepticism, the scientific method, objectivity/intellectual 21 honesty, and peer review. This approach, as well as other aspects of the course design 22 discussed below, is also consistent with the recommendations put forward by the AAAS 23 in its Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; 24 Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990), which was developed to establish recommendations for 25 science literacy in the U.S. 26 27 28 Nature of Science 29 30 Part of the rationale for developing an integrated science course, and one which addresses 31 science as a way of knowing, was the recognition that, if students take only two required 32 science courses in college, they will necessarily graduate with gaping holes in their 33 knowledge of science because they will have learned little or nothing of the key ideas in 34 the science disciplines that were not included in their coursework. 35 36 In addition, because undergraduate science courses typically do not address the nature of 37 science and scientific reasoning, students will not develop an understanding of the 38 rationale for the scientific method as a means of reducing or eliminating error, nor will 39 they develop their scientific reasoning skills and their ability to apply them to real-world 40 situations. Nor will they will be able to distinguish good science from ‘bad’ science, or 41 real science from pseudoscience. 42 43 The fact that most Gen-Ed science courses do not address these concepts leaves graduates 44 unprepared to make informed decisions regarding science-related issues, and it makes it 45 far more likely they will reject well-supported theories in science. As evidenced by the 46

2

rise of an anti-vaccine ‘movement’ in the U.S. and elsewhere, they may also reject the 47 well-established efficacy of vaccines and the health benefits afforded by them. Lacking 48 an understanding of the scientific methods by which medicines are tested for safety and 49 efficacy, and placing higher confidence in anecdotal accounts, many people abandon 50 thoroughly researched medical practices and treatments in favor of untested and even 51 harmful ‘alternative medicines’ and practices. In short, there are numerous indicators 52 that people are implicitly rejecting the validity of the scientific method itself. This anti-53 science attitude has profoundly negative implications and consequences for society as 54 shown by the outbreak of whooping cough in the U.S. in 2012. More than 11,000 cases 55 were reported to the CDC, at least 12 of which were fatal. This was the largest number of 56 cases reported in the last 50 years (Rosenau, 2012). This outbreak of an entirely 57 preventable disease occurred because parents rejected the scientific basis of vaccines and 58 chose not to have their children vaccinated. 59 60 The critical thinking/scientific-reasoning framework of the course is encapsulated, as we 61 discussed in the paper, in a set of questions Bernstein et al. (2006) suggest be asked when 62 evaluating a claim. James Lett (1990) expanded those questions into a more formalized 63 set of rules known by the acronym FiLCHeRS, a framework we find particularly useful 64 for helping students distinguish science from pseudoscience. The easily assimilated 65 acronym (once students understand what it means to be filched) stands for Falsifiability, 66 Logic, Comprehensiveness of evidence, Honesty (as in ‘intellectual honesty’), 67 Replication of research, and Sufficiency of evidence, respectively. Every claim and 68 theory in the course, both scientific and pseudoscientific, is evaluated using Lett’s rules. 69 Our repeated use of the framework provides students with a systematic, coherent method 70 for analyzing claims. They quickly learn to spot pseudoscientific claims because such 71 claims violate many of the rules, while good scientific claims do not. In short, Lett’s 72 framework provides a compelling demonstration of the reliability of the scientific 73 method. Step-by-incremental step, we try to expand the students’ latitudes of acceptance 74 (see sections on SJT in the main manuscript and also below) by helping them understand 75 the power of science as a way of knowing. 76

77 78 Critical Thinking 79 80 In order to think critically, the student must first know what critical thinking is and value 81 it as an essential component of informed decision-making. They also must understand at 82 least some of the ways in which critical thinking can be subverted based on biases, 83 misperceptions, faulty memory, and cognitive dissonance so that they can avoid these 84 sources of error. For this reason, the lecture and lab include discussions and activities 85 that directly demonstrate limits in the accuracy of our students’ own perceptions and 86 memories. These activities are not only engaging, but they vividly demonstrate the 87 unreliability of anecdotal testimony and, by inference, the need for the scientific method. 88 89 Ultimately, any hypothesis or theory in science is based on an argument; therefore, it is 90 essential for students to understand the structure of an argument (premises and 91 conclusion), the characteristics of a valid and sound deductive argument, and the 92

3

characteristics of a reasonable, or sound, inductive argument. Therefore, as discussed in 93 the main article, we do something that is unique in a science course, but which is 94 fundamentally important to the success of the course; namely, we include a discussion of 95 arguments, as well as common heuristics and logical fallacies. Very few college students 96 are aware of what an argument is, or of heuristics and fallacies, prior to taking the course, 97 and few students would be exposed to them outside of a philosophy course; yet, an 98 understanding and awareness of them is essential to critical thinking and to the evaluation 99 of claims. Because the reliability of science as a way of knowing rests to a large degree 100 on the arguments it makes, students must understand what constitutes a good argument; 101 i.e., they must understand the necessity of having good reasons for either accepting or 102 rejecting a claim, which is based on an argument. 103 104 An example of this is provided by the argument we use to establish the multi-billion year 105 age of the universe. This argument is discussed in the section of the course dealing with 106 astronomy and the Big Bang Theory. 107 108

1) Premise 1: We can see galaxies located more than 13 billion light years away. 109 2) Premise 2: By definition, it takes light one year to travel a distance of one-light 110

year. 111 3) Conclusion: The universe must be at least 13 billion years old in order for light to 112

have reached us from galaxies located 13 billion lights years away. 113 114

Our students, having learned about arguments, can now recognize this is a valid and 115 sound argument, and so it is reasonable for them to conclude that the universe really is 116 billions of years old. Had they not learned about arguments, this conclusion might 117 otherwise carry little weight and its conclusion be dismissed as mere opinion. 118 119 120 Pseudoscience 121 122 One of the most important aspects of the course is that students are asked to use what 123 they have learned in the course, both scientific facts and critical thinking concepts, to 124 evaluate a variety of unsupported and/or pseudoscientific claims. The need to include 125 such extraordinary claims derives from the readily observable fact that the media 126 bombards people with such claims on a daily basis – yet most people, including college 127 graduates, lack the scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills to evaluate them 128 (Johnson and Pigliucci, 2004). Consequently, many people uncritically accept them, as 129 happened recently when the Animal Planet channel ran two pseudo-documentaries on the 130 alleged existence of mermaids. The second documentary was the most watched show in 131 the history of the channel, with about 3.6 million viewers (Day, 2013). By incorporating 132 pseudoscientific and extraordinary claims into the course, and using scientific facts, laws 133 of nature, and critical thinking skills taught in the course, students gain real-world 134 experience in using this information to rationally evaluate claims – and they learn science 135 in the process. This is consistent with an approach advocated by Martin (1994) who 136 argued that science teachers should include pseudoscience in their courses, not for 137 purposes of teaching it, but to help students learn to distinguish science from 138

4

pseudoscience and to critically evaluate claims. Were students taught science in this 139 manner, and armed with critical thinking skills as part of their science education, few 140 would fall for the sorts of claims presented in the mermaid pseudo-documentary – or for 141 a host of other pseudoscientific claims that permeate our culture. 142 143 The evaluation of the pseudoscientific claim regarding the Loch Ness monster (Rowe, 144 2015) was mentioned in the main article. Another example concerns the evaluation of 145 claims pertaining to astrology which, according to SEI 2014 (National Science 146 Foundation, 2014), 42% of Americans believe is either “sort of scientific” (32%) or “very 147 scientific (10%). Prior to the discussion of this topic, students first learn relevant 148 astronomy pertaining to stars, galaxies, and interstellar distances. They also learn about 149 the four fundamental forces of nature. Using this information, students can then begin to 150 evaluate the claim that a mere 200 stars, out of about 200 billion in our galaxy, somehow 151 exert – through means that defy scientific understanding of the universe – an effect on the 152 personalities of people and their lives based on the position of these stars (and planets) at 153 the time of their birth. By learning about the fundamental forces of nature (of which 154 there are only four and no more), students realize that the strong and weak nuclear forces 155 could not exert such an effect because their range is limited to the nucleus of an atom, 156 and that both the gravitational and electromagnetic force are too weak – at those distances 157 – to produce a biological effect. Indeed, they calculate that the doctor standing next to a 158 mother at the time of her child’s birth exerts a gravitational force millions of times 159 greater than does the nearest star. And, even if these two forces do have the ability to 160 ‘reach’ a person, students are asked to consider the related question of how, exactly, it 161 would affect personality and/or control a person’s future? What is the proposed 162 mechanism? As students learn in the course, pseudoscience never offers a plausible, 163 observable, or testable mechanism to explain how alleged extraordinary or paranormal 164 phenomena are supposed to occur. In contrast, scientific explanations require that such a 165 mechanism be offered. 166 167 168 Critical Thinking and Psychological Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Ideas 169 170 Students also learn relevant psychology pertaining to the reasons why people may believe 171 astrology and other extraordinary claims are true even when there is no objective 172 evidence for them. In the case of astrology, the specific psychological factor that is 173 addressed is the Forer Effect (also called the Barnum Effect); i.e., the tendency of people 174 to think a general statement which applies to most anyone (such as that in a horoscope) 175 appears to apply exclusively to them. This combination of knowledge and analysis 176 enables students to understand that astrology is pseudoscience, but in the process of 177 discussing astrology, they learn about astronomy and physics, as well as relevant 178 psychological factors which influence our perceptions. In a similar manner, students use 179 the laws of nature and relevant psychology to evaluate claims about UFOs, alien 180 abductions, ghosts, and paranormal phenomena. In the process, they learn how easy it is 181 to misperceive events, or fall victim to critical-thinking pitfalls such as selective recall 182 and confirmation bias, and thereby incorrectly conclude that something is true when it is 183 not. 184

5

185 It is important to emphasize that, as instructors, we do not – acting as ‘experts’ – tell our 186 students that the Loch Ness monster, or astrology, or any other claim in the course is 187 wrong; nor do we tell them that a scientific theory is ‘correct’ and that they should simply 188 accept it because “we say so.” We let them judge the claims and theories for themselves 189 based on the evidence, relevant science, and critical thinking skills they have learned. 190 This ‘compare and contrast’ approach reduces the likelihood of an automatic rejection of 191 a scientific explanation by eliminating the human tendency to reject an idea because it 192 was presented in such a way as to imply that the students’ freedom of choice is being 193 taken away from them; as in, “Don’t try to tell me what to think” (Erwin, 2014). 194 Furthermore, evidence regarding some extraordinary claims is ambiguous and may yet 195 prove to be true. In such cases, this is acknowledged and it reinforces the fact that not 196 everything is clear-cut. We stress that science is a process of acquiring knowledge, and 197 much has yet to be learned. Just as importantly, we stress throughout the course that the 198 truth of an idea is not determined by whether we like it, or how many people believe it, 199 but by the quality of evidence and logic used to support it (the S and L in the FiLCHeRS 200 acronym). Our results show that this approach is successful in teaching students the 201 effectiveness of the scientific method and critical thinking in evaluating claims, and in 202 distinguishing science from pseudoscience. 203 204 In developing the course, we recognized that an appreciation of critical thinking and 205 acceptance of science and scientific theories involves far more than a student’s exposure 206 to scientific facts and the scientific method. Perhaps more importantly, it also involves 207 their worldview; i.e., their beliefs and attitudes toward science. These affect their 208 psychological readiness to examine various scientific theories and to engage in critical 209 thinking (Alters and Nelson, 2002). Especially as regards the Big Bang Theory and the 210 Theory of Evolution, students’ prior beliefs may prevent them from even considering the 211 possibility that these theories might be correct because the ideas are perceived as a threat 212 to their religious worldview. Failure to address this fundamentally important 213 psychological component of students’ thinking will almost inevitably result in a failure to 214 convince students that these ideas are not mere opinions but, rather, well-supported 215 theories based on empirical evidence. In short, if a scientific theory (or its implications) 216 is too far removed from a students’ current worldview, and if it is considered threatening, 217 it will almost certainly be summarily rejected; in fact, a student may become even more 218 convinced that it is wrong if simply presented with “the scientific facts.” 219 220 Accordingly, great care must be taken when discussing controversial topics so as not to 221 threaten the students’ religious worldview (see NOMA below) or reinforce these negative 222 perceptions. Furthermore, simply presenting the facts regarding these theories is unlikely 223 to produce a shift in their perceptions of these theories. However, Social Justice Theory 224 (SJT), which pertains to attitude change, provides a means of addressing this 225 psychological factor. According to this well-established theory, which is based on what 226 are termed latitudes of acceptance and rejection, a position that is substantially different 227 from a person’s initial position can eventually be accepted if that person’s latitude of 228 acceptance and rejection is incrementally shifted toward the new position. Small, gradual 229 shifts of opinion can lead to a willingness to consider once incongruent ideas (Benoit, no 230

6

date). In contrast, a single, big shift leading to the acceptance of a highly incongruent 231 idea does not usually occur. This is why a science course dealing with these topics 232 should include an in-depth discussion of the nature of science, critical thinking, and the 233 benefits of science, as well as information which will be relevant to the discussion of 234 evolution (e.g., the age of the earth and universe). This information should be discussed 235 before evolution is discussed because it leads to gradual shifts in students’ latitudes of 236 acceptance. Attempting to discuss evolution first, without having carefully laid a 237 foundation for it, will be unlikely to produce attitude change because it lies too far 238 outside a student’s latitude of acceptance. 239 240 Given that the Internet and airwaves are full of unfounded and pseudoscientific claims 241 made by people lacking relevant expertise in science, our discussion of critical thinking 242 also includes an evaluation of what constitutes an expert, especially a scientific expert 243 (e.g., relevant degree, publication record, etc.). This is critically important because, if 244 students cannot distinguish a reliable source of information from one that is not, they will 245 be more likely to accept pseudoscience – and to reject real science. For example, if 246 parents think a celebrity is a better source of information regarding the efficacy of 247 vaccines, they might choose to not have their child vaccinated because they consider the 248 celebrity to be more knowledgeable than a doctor or the medical establishment. 249 250 Our working assumption for teaching both scientific facts and critical thinking concepts 251 in the same course is rather obvious; namely, if students have facts, but cannot think 252 logically, they will reach the wrong conclusion; and, if they can think critically, but lack 253 scientific knowledge, they will also reach the wrong conclusion. Both are necessary, and 254 by relating the critical thinking concepts to specific scientific and pseudoscientific claims, 255 students learn the concepts better. 256 257 258 Additional Information about Topics and Topical Organization 259 260 The course is organized into a sequence of topics specifically arranged so as to shift 261 students’ latitudes of acceptance and rejection in favor of science. In the main article, 262 reference was made to the discussion, at the beginning of the course, of witch hunts and 263 the Satanic Ritual Abuse cases as a means of demonstrating the necessity of both 264 scientific literacy and critical thinking in order to avoid harm. In other words, the point 265 of this discussion is to show that not only are science and critical thinking not bad things 266 to be feared or rejected, they are actually good things to be embraced because they 267 provide so many benefits to humanity and prevent so much harm. 268 269 One source of confusion we also address early in the course are the distinctions between 270 a fact, hypothesis, law, and theory. Understanding the distinctions between these terms is 271 essential because most students are confused by them (Alters and Nelson, 2002), and this 272 confusion serves, to some degree, as the basis for rejecting anthropogenic climate change, 273 the efficacy of vaccines, the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory (as in, “they 274 are only theories”). This confusion also leads students to embrace many pseudoscientific 275 concepts because, in the minds of many, “theories are just opinions” and their own 276

7

preferred opinion is just as good as the ‘misguided’ opinions of scientists. The discussion 277 of the Big Bang theory is specifically intended to illustrate these distinctions and to 278 emphasize the nature of a scientific theory; i.e., that a theory is a well-established 279 explanation of what is observed. Once the students understand the observations upon 280 which the Big Bang theory is based, and the ‘logic’ of the theory, they are much more 281 likely to accept it, and the multi-billion year age for the universe. The same applies to the 282 Theory of Plate tectonics and the Theory of Evolution. We also stress that no theory is 283 complete; i.e., that it is an approximation of reality and is subject to change based on new 284 evidence. This idea, which is the idea that science, unlike other ways of 285 knowing/thinking, is self-correcting, is stressed throughout the course. 286 287 Beginning with the discussion on astronomy, we make a concerted effort to inculcate a 288 sense of awe in our students – a sense of the grandeur and wonder of the universe as 289 revealed by science. This, we hope, further helps students embrace science as a way of 290 knowing. In short, if science is seen as a source of beauty and wonder, rather than as a 291 boring, cold, heartless endeavor that diminishes a sense of wonder, students are more 292 likely to engage science. Many students, for example, develop an appreciation for 293 cosmology once they understand that they really, truly are made of stardust. How 294 wonderful. 295 296 In the second part of the course, we introduce students to the experimental method. This 297 includes such concepts as independent and dependent variables, confounding variables, 298 placebo effects, control groups, experimental groups, double-blind studies, experimenter 299 bias, and sample size. The emphasis, as always, is on sources of potential error and how 300 the scientific method attempts to control for them. We emphasize, either implicitly or 301 explicitly, that the procedures embedded in the scientific method for reducing and 302 eliminating error are what makes science “a good thing” – something to be appreciated 303 rather than rejected. 304 305 These concepts are reinforced through a discussion of the FDA approval process, 306 followed by discussions and analyses of various complementary and alternative 307 medicines, such as homeopathy and therapeutic touch. As regards these two “therapies,” 308 students have learned enough at this point in the course to realize they clearly violate the 309 laws of nature, and any anecdotal evidence of their efficacy is due to a placebo effect, 310 spontaneous remission, misdiagnosis, etc. Knowing this enables students to draw the 311 conclusion that homeopathy and therapeutic touch are examples of pseudoscience. Just 312 as importantly, they learn that CAM claims in general are virtually never tested or 313 evaluated. Understanding this reinforces the efficacy of science and leads to healthy 314 skepticism of CAM claims in general. 315 316 Psychic research is covered following the discussion of CAM – again with an emphasis 317 on the ways in which these phenomena, even if real, appear to violate our current 318 understanding of the laws of nature. The lack of successful replication of seemingly 319 positive results (the R in the FiLCHeRS rules) is also discussed as part of the analysis of 320 these claims. While not definitively ‘debunking’ psychic phenomena, students come to 321 understand that the scientific community has not accepted the existence of paranormal 322

8

phenomena – not because scientists are ‘biased’, but because the evidence is insufficient 323 to conclude that paranormal phenomena are real (the S in the FiLCHeRS rules). 324 Scientists also do not accept paranormal phenomena because they contradict a well-325 established body of knowledge in science. This principle of non-contradiction as a 326 criterion of truth (i.e., the necessity of logical consistency between a claim and well-327 established knowledge) is stressed throughout the course. 328 329 Following the foray into CAM and paranormal phenomena, we discuss principles of 330 geology and plate tectonics, the formation and age of the earth, rock types, relative and 331 absolute dating techniques, uniformitarianism, and finally genetics and evolution. By 332 providing evidence of the ancient age of the universe and earth through the discussion of 333 astronomy and geology, students more readily accept the scientifically established age of 334 the earth. For students who might otherwise be swayed by advocates of Young Earth 335 Creationism, this is critical for their potential acceptance of evolution because it shows 336 them that the earth is, in fact, ancient in age, having existed for the vast amount of time 337 required for biological evolution to have occurred (Smith, 2010a, b). 338 339 Furthermore, by continually demonstrating the reliability of science as a way of knowing 340 throughout the course, and specifically contrasting Creationism/Intelligent 341 Design/Irreducible Complexity with the evidence for evolutionary theory, we are able to 342 gradually shift the students’ latitude of acceptance toward a willingness to accept 343 evolution because they can see the evidence for themselves – and the logic upon which it 344 is based. 345 346 The principle of logical consistency as a criterion for truth is particularly important in the 347 discussion of young-earth creationism because its acceptance requires the negation of 348 findings from astronomy, geology, paleontology, genetics, physics, and chemistry. In 349 short, it is inconsistent with these other fields; consequently, one would have to discard 350 virtually all of science, and the scientific method itself, in order to accept it. However, 351 only by establishing the validity of astronomy, geology, the scientific method, etc., earlier 352 in the course does this argument carry weight. This is why the topics are discussed in a 353 specific sequence – and why evolution is covered last in the course. Without having laid 354 an appropriate foundation, the discussion of evolution earlier in the course would almost 355 certainly result in fewer students’ willingness to consider it and, in accordance with 356 Social Justice Theory, might actually lead them to reject not only the idea of evolution, 357 but other scientific conclusions discussed in the course as well. 358 359 As with the “Age of the Universe argument,” we also use an “Evolution argument” 360 which, after having covered genetics, mutations, and the evidence of evolution, is very 361 compelling to students. One version of the argument for evolution we use is: 362 363

1) Premise 1: Genetic change occurs; i.e., mutations occur producing new genes, new 364 alleles, and new genotypes. (*We also stress that, contrary to popular belief, not 365 all mutations are bad. This mistaken belief must be addressed because it 366 necessarily precludes an acceptance of evolution.) 367

9

2) Premise 2: Genetic changes can be passed from parent to offspring (i.e., the 368 changes are inherited from parents) 369

3) Premise 3: Natural selection occurs due to competition, with those 370 genotypes/phenotypes best suited to their current environment surviving and 371 producing more offspring 372

4) Conclusion: Changes in the allelic frequencies of a population necessarily occur; 373 therefore evolution occurs. 374

375 Students accept each of the premises and, having done so, they are more likely to accept 376 the conclusion that evolution occurs. Students recognize this as a valid and sound 377 argument. Indeed, at this point, we flip the question from “Does evolution occur?” to, 378 “How could it not occur?” Again, without understanding an argument, or what makes an 379 argument valid and sound, this approach would probably not be effective; hence the need 380 to include these concepts in a science course. Critical thinking/logic is essential to an 381 acceptance of evolution, as was shown by a study of non-major biology students. Those 382 who were less skilled in critical thinking were also more likely to hold nonscientific 383 beliefs and their nonscientific views were not easily changed (Lawson and Weser, 1990). 384 385 386 Limitations of Science 387 388 There is one additional aspect to this process that we think is of critical importance to the 389 observed shift in students’ willingness to accept, or consider, the Big Bang Theory and 390 the Theory of Evolution. In order to address concerns students may have that these ideas 391 threaten their religious beliefs, which constitute a key factor leading to the rejection of 392 scientific theories and, by implication, science itself, we adopted Stephen Jay Gould’s 393 concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) (Gould, 1999). This concept is based 394 on the idea that there are different domains of human experience and that science deals 395 exclusively with the domain that can be empirically investigated. Science does not, by its 396 nature, address questions of morality, or ultimate meaning or purpose, as do religion, 397 ethics, and philosophy. Accordingly, we stress the strength of science throughout the 398 course in terms of its ability to advance knowledge of empirical matters, but we also 399 acknowledge its limits regarding other aspects of the human experience pertaining to 400 meaning, purpose, and values. We also point out that the assertion one can either “be 401 religious” or accept evolution, but not both, is an example of one of the fallacies they 402 have learned; namely, the False-Dichotomy fallacy. As Joshua Rosenau of the National 403 Center for Science Education said, “Recognizing and defusing the social pressures 404 underlying science denial are key in convincing people that it is even worth considering 405 scientific ideas that seem contrary to those of their social identity” (Rosenau, 2012). 406 407 Having established the distinctions between science and non-science early in the 408 semester, and putting forward the NOMA principle, our students are more receptive to 409 scientific theories because they do not feel threatened by them. We recognize that not all 410 scientists share this view about NOMA and might be philosophically opposed to this 411 approach; however, the effectiveness of our approach, which addresses the psychology of 412

10

belief and is respectful of the worldviews of our students, has been shown to be quite 413 effective based on our results involving the MATE assessment. 414 415 Our approach is also consistent with that recommended by Smith (2010a, b) in a 416 comprehensive review of the literature concerning philosophical and pedagogical issues 417 regarding the teaching of evolution. He specifically addresses the need to acknowledge 418 both students’ worldview (and how it affects their willingness to consider evolution), and 419 their misconceptions regarding science and evolution. Accordingly, he emphasizes the 420 necessity of using pedagogical approaches based on recognition of cognitive factors 421 affecting belief and conceptual change, as well as the need to teach the nature of science 422 – not just the facts of science. He also argues that a NOMA-based approach is more 423 successful in facilitating change in attitudes regarding evolution and, we would argue, 424 would apply to the Big Bang theory and other scientific ideas students find 425 discomforting. 426 427 428 Use of Case Studies and Assignments 429 430 There is one additional aspect of the course design we believe has been critical in our 431 success; i.e., an active and cooperative learning approach built around case studies. 432 Smith et al. (2005) reported that, between 1924 and 1997, more than 168 studies were 433 conducted in an attempt to assess the relative effectiveness of various methods of 434 learning, namely, cooperative, competitive, and individualistic pedagogies. A meta-435 analyses of these studies showed that the cooperative learning approach resulted in 436 significant and substantial increases in learning; i.e., higher achievement, relative to 437 either the individualistic or competitive approaches. The measures used to gauge the 438 amount of learning included information learned, accuracy of knowledge, critical 439 thinking/reasoning, and ability to creatively solve problems. In short, research strongly 440 supports the conclusion that cooperative learning in its various forms is superior to 441 lecture alone. 442 443 This same pattern was found by Springer et al.’s (1999) meta-analysis of the 444 effectiveness of small group interactive engagement on learning by undergraduates in 445 STEM courses. Results showed that students who worked in small groups performed at 446 higher levels, had better attitudes, and were more likely to remain STEM majors than 447 students in a traditional lecture class. In a similar review of the literature, Johnson, 448 Johnson, and Smith (2007) reported that cooperative learning (which is incorporated into 449 the case study approach used in the FoS course) tends to have several positive results 450 which included, but were not limited to, improved learning and retention of the material, 451 the more frequent use of critical thinking and metacognition, and improved problem 452 solving. Based on the results of almost a century of research comparing cooperative 453 learning with individual and competitive learning, the FoS course was designed to require 454 active engagement and critical thinking on the part of students as they work together as 455 members of a group to evaluate claims in lecture, in homework assignments, and in lab. 456 457 458

11

Peer Evaluation System 459 460 To ensure student engagement in group work, and a more accurate accounting of a 461 student’s participation within the group, we implemented a peer evaluation system 462 modeled after Larry Michaelsen’s Team-Based Learning approach (Parmelee et al., 463 2012); the system requires students to evaluate the contribution of their team members, 464 for group-related tasks only, for purposes of determining each student’s group score. 465 The use of this type of system, which was highly recommended by faculty affiliated with 466 the Case Study program at SUNY-Buffalo, helps alleviate students’ concern that some 467 members of the group will do all the work, but everyone – including slackers – will get 468 the same grade. 469 470 471 Conclusion 472 473 Based on the assessments used to evaluate our course, the number of students assessed 474 (475 for CAT test; 1443 for the pre-MATE assessment and 1251 for the post-MATE 475 assessment), as well as the length of the assessment period (4-5 years), the results are 476 robust and demonstrate the greater efficacy of the FoS course for teaching scientific 477 reasoning/critical thinking and science literacy relative to traditional approaches to 478 teaching General-Education science courses for non-majors. The success of the FoS 479 course is based on the inclusion of principles of critical thinking and logical fallacies, 480 information pertaining to the limits of perception and memory, the nature of science, and 481 details regarding the scientific method. In addition, it specifically contrasts science with 482 pseudoscience, and uses a case study approach requiring students to use their scientific 483 knowledge to evaluate claims. This encourages higher order thinking and the perceived 484 relevance of the material. Because the course deals with ideas that could potentially 485 create dissonance in many students, it directly addresses this concept through 486 consideration of relevant psychological factors affecting belief. Finally, the use of group 487 work enhances learning, and the use of a peer evaluation system encourages participation 488 of all students when doing group work. 489 490 It is this combination of approaches, which is not part of traditional science courses, that 491 we believe has made the course successful in promoting the development of critical 492 thinking and the acceptance of discomforting scientific theories. It has helped our 493 students better evaluate the innumerable examples of pseudoscientific claims that 494 permeate our society. By adopting this approach to science education, our students have 495 a greater understanding and appreciation of science and why it works, and they are more-496 informed and better-prepared to make decisions than are students who complete more 497 traditional general-education science courses. 498 499 500 501

12

REFERENCES 502 503 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061 - 504 Benchmarks for Science Literacy: A Tool for Curriculum Reform, Washington, DC. 505 506 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2010). Vision and Change: A 507 Call to Action, Washington, DC. 508 509 Alters, B.J., and Nelson, C.E. (2002). Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education. 510 Evolution 56, 1891-1901. 511 512 Benoit, W.L. Persuasion (Communication Institute for Online Scholarship). 513 http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/persuasion/Esocial_judgment_1theory.htm (accessed 6 514 February 2015). 515 516 Bernstein, D.A., Penner, L.A., Clarke-Stewart, A., and Roy, E.J. (2006). Psychology, 517 Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 518 519 Day, P.K. (2013). Animal Planet's mermaid hoax special draws record ratings. Los 520 Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/30/entertainment/la-et-st-animal-521 planet-mermaid-hoax-special-record-ratings-20130530 (accessed 6 February 2015). 522 523 Erwin, P. (2014). Attitudes and Persuasion, New York: Psychology Press. 524 525 Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, New 526 York: Ballantine. 527 528 Impey, C., Buxner, S., and Antonellis, J. (2012). Non-scientific beliefs among 529 undergraduate students. Astron Educ Rev 11, 1-12. 530 531 Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in 532 postsecondary and professional settings. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 15-29. 533 534 Johnson, M., and Pigliucci, M. (2004). Is KNOWLEDGE of SCIENCE Associated with 535 Higher Skepticism of Pseudoscientific Claims? Am Biol Teach 66, 536-548. 536 537 Lawson, A.E., and Weser, J. (1990). The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about life: 538 effects of instruction and reasoning skills. J Res Sci Teach 27, 589-606. 539 540 Lett, J. (1990). A field guide to critical thinking. Skeptical Inquirer 14, 153-160. 541 542 Martin, M. (1994). Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education. Sci & Educ 3, 543 357-371. 544 545 Miller, J.D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Underst Sci 7, 546 203-223. 547

13

548 National Science Foundation. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, 549 Arlingtong, VA: National Science Board. 550 551 Parmelee, D., Michaelsen, L.K., Cook, S., and Hudes, P.D. (2012). Team-based learning: 552 A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 65. Med Teach 34, E275-E287. 553 554 Rosenau, J. (2012). Science denial: a guide for scientists. Trends Microbiol 20, 567-569. 555 556 Rowe, M.P. (2015). Crazy about cryptids! An ecological hunt for Nessie and other 557 legendary creatures. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. 558 http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=779&id=779 559 (accessed 27 June 2015). 560 561 Rutherford, F.J., and Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans, Oxford: Oxford 562 University Press. 563 564 Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S.D., Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. (2005). Pedagogies of 565 engagement: Classroom-based practices. J Eng Educ 94, 87-101. 566 567 Smith, M.U. (2010a). Current Status of Research in Teaching and Learning Evolution: I. 568 Philosophical/Epistemological Issues. Sci & Educ 19, 523-538. 569 570 Smith, M.U. (2010b). Current Status of Research in Teaching and Learning Evolution: II. 571 Pedagogical Issues. Sci & Educ 19, 539-571. 572 573 Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., and Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on 574 undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. 575 Rev Educ Res 69, 21-51. 576 577 578 579

14

580 2. Example Course Syllabus 581

582 583

Foundations of Science

584 585

586

15

Foundations of Science 587 BIOL 1436-‐04; CRN: 23793 588 Spring Semester 2015 589

590 Course Number and Title: BIOL 1436-‐04: Foundations of Science (4 credits) 591 Class Time: Tuesday and Thursday (9:30-‐10:50) 592 Class Meeting Room: Lee Drain Building (LDB) 207 593 Name: Dr. Marcus Gillespie: Office Number: LDB 200 (Dean’s Office area) 594 Office Hours: MWF 9:00-‐11:00 in LDB 200 (Dean’s 595

Office) 596 Phone: 294-‐1945 597 E-‐mail: [email protected] 598

* I always try to have an “open-‐door” policy as 599 regards office hours, so please feel free to call 600 or come by any time that you have a question. 601

602 Catalog Description: The course focuses on the nature of science as a reliable method of 603 acquiring knowledge about the natural world. Students will learn how to apply key 604 scientific facts, concepts, laws and theories to distinguish science from non-‐science, bad 605 science, and psedudoscience by analyzing a variety of claims and case studies. By 606 employing an innovative, interdisciplinary approach to science education, this course is 607 designed to increase science literacy and critical thinking skills for introductory-‐level 608 students who are not science majors. Students MUST enroll concurrently in the 609 corresponding lab for this course. Credit: 4 610 611 Course Description/Rationale: The rationale for this course is to enhance your scientific 612 literacy by making science both interesting and relevant. This will be accomplished by 613 helping you understand how science works and how you can apply science in your daily life, 614 especially when evaluating extraordinary/unusual claims in which almost everyone is 615 interested – including UFOs, ESP, and mysterious creatures like Big Foot. 616

617 Accordingly, the overarching objectives of this course are to enhance your scientific literacy 618 and critical thinking skills using an integrated, multidisciplinary approach that draws upon 619 key concepts from the natural sciences, psychology, and critical thinking. The three broad 620 goals of this integrated course are: 621

622 1) to enhance your understanding and appreciation of science as a proven and reliable 623

method of comprehending the natural world, and to help you distinguish scientific 624 from non-‐scientific and pseudoscientific ways of thinking about the world; 625

626 2) to provide you with a more well-‐rounded understanding of science by teaching you 627

the basic principles, facts, laws, and theories from the natural sciences and, when 628 relevant, from psychology; 629

630

16

3) to teach you specific rules of critical thinking so that you can use them, and your 631 knowledge of science and the scientific method, to make more informed decisions. 632 All three goals are inseparable and are interwoven throughout the course. 633

634 These three goals will be accomplished by using information from the natural sciences, the 635 scientific method, and rules of critical thinking to examine a range of claims that are 636 common in our society. These claims include, but are not limited to, extraordinary claims 637 and pseudoscientific claims such as those pertaining to astrology, UFOs, legendary 638 creatures, the lost continent of Atlantis, alternative medicines, paranormal phenomena, and 639 others. Through an examination of these and other topics, as well as the evidence for key 640 scientific theories, you will learn more about the nature of science and the scientific method, 641 how to more reliably evaluate the veracity of claims, and how to avoid common errors in 642 reasoning that lead to erroneous conclusions. This knowledge will help protect you from 643 fraudulent and misleading claims and will enable you to make more informed decisions 644 regarding issues of significance to our society. Finally, it is my hope that you will gain a 645 greater appreciation of the beauty and wonder of the natural world as revealed by science. 646 647

Upon successful completion of the course, you will be able to: 648 649 1. Understand and apply scientific terminology pertaining to the nature and conduct of 650

science, such as hypothesis, law, theory, control group, placebo group, confirmation 651 bias, and double-‐blind study; 652

653 2. Apply methods of reasoning used by scientists: i.e., the scientific method based on the 654

requirements of falsifiability/testability, logical consistency, comprehensiveness of 655 evidence, intellectual honesty (objectivity), replication of results, and sufficiency of 656 evidence; 657

658 3. Analyze and evaluate common logical fallacies and perceptual biases that interfere with 659

the ability to draw reasonable and/or correct conclusions, as well as the difference 660 between facts, informed opinions, and uninformed opinions; 661

662 4. Learn key concepts and theories from a variety of scientific disciplines, especially 663

physics, biology, and geology; 664 665 5. Demonstrate how to distinguish science from pseudoscience by scientifically evaluating 666

a wide variety of extraordinary claims that are common in our culture today. 667 668 Just as importantly, upon completion of this course, we hope that you will have a greater 669 appreciation of the role of science in all of our lives and the need for scientific literacy and 670 critical thinking to help make informed decisions about issues currently facing our society. 671 672 Methods of Instruction: This course is based on a combination of traditional lecture 673 format, coupled with the use of “case studies” which involve classroom-‐based group work, 674 class discussions, homework assignments, and readings. The use of case studies (which are 675 stories with an educational purpose) has been shown to: significantly increase student 676 interest, enjoyment, and involvement with a course; improve grades; and enhance students’ 677 critical thinking ability. 678 679

17

Students are required to take the lab concurrently because the lecture 680 and lab constitute a single course. The lab is also based on the use of case studies. 681 682 Course Materials: There are two textbooks for the course and a lab manual. The first book 683 listed below (Foundations of Science) is an integrated science text that provides the 684 scientific knowledge for the course. The second text (How to Think about Weird Things) 685 provides an understanding of how to use both critical thinking and scientific reasoning to 686 evaluate extraordinary/weird claims. 687 688

1) Foundations of Science -‐ Custom (This is a custom edition of Conceptual 689 Integrated Science), by Hewitt, Lyons, Suchocki, and Yeh, 2012, 690 Pearson/Addison-‐Wesley, San Francisco. ISBN 97812696855350 691

692 2) How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age – 693

7e, 2013, by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn, McGraw-‐Hill. ISBN 694 9780078038365 (paperback). 695

696 3) Lab manual: Foundations of Science Lab Manual ISBN 697 9780738068237 698

699 Scantrons: You will need approximately 5 of the "long" Scantron test forms (the 100-‐700 question version; 50 on front and 50 on back [form #882-‐E]) and 10 of the "short" Scantron 701 test forms (15 question "Quizzstrip"; form #815-‐E); you might also need a calculator for lab. 702 703 Supplementary Readings: If used, these will be distributed either in class or placed on 704 BlackBoard. 705 706

Grading Criteria 707 708 Because the lecture and lab portions of the course are considered to be part of the 709 same course, the final course grade is based on a combination of lecture tests, lecture 710 coursework, and lab work. In other words, there is no separate lab grade. 711 Specifically, the lecture tests constitute 48% of the grade, the lecture assignments 712 constitute 24.6%, attendance constitutes 3%, and the lab assignments constitute 713 24.4%. Because of this, students must remain enrolled in both the lecture and lab for 714 the entire semester; they cannot drop either the lecture or the lab and receive a 715 grade for the course. The 4 in the 1436 designation for the course indicates that this 716 is a 4-‐credit course that has a lab component. 717 718 Grading will be based on 3 lecture exams (including the final), eight (8) sets of reading 719 questions, 3 group case study activities, 3 group homework assignments, individual and 720 group lab quiz grades, peer evaluations by your fellow group members in both lecture and 721 lab (see details below), a syllabus quiz, and attendance. You will also be given a critical 722 thinking assessment at the beginning and end of the semester that serves as extra 723 credit. This extra credit can be very important to your overall grade, so PLEASE do your 724 best on both exams! 725 726

18

Please note that the number of assignments may be changed slightly (e.g., add or drop a 727 homework assignment) if circumstances warrant such a change. If this happens, it will have a 728 slight effect on the percentage points associated with each aspect of the course. 729

730 In an integrated course such as this, each topic serves as the foundation for subsequent 731 material; consequently, students should remember and understand all of the basic 732 principles covered previously in the course in order to apply them in the case studies 733 and labs, and to do well on exams. 734 735

Tests: There are 3 major exams and each will consist of multiple-‐choice and matching-‐736 type questions, and will be worth 750 points. (Don't panic! There won't be 375 two-‐737 point questions – just a standard number of questions). Tests total 2250 points and 738 constitute 48% of the total course grade. 739

740 Reading Quizzes: Each week, you will be assigned readings from the books listed above 741 and, in some cases, from PowerPoint lectures that are posted on BlackBoard but which 742 are not discussed in class. To ensure that students read these assignments, a set of 743 reading questions will normally be given every two weeks over the reading 744 material. These assignments will be completed outside of class online, in 745 BlackBoard. You are asked to use both your books and notes to complete the 746 assignments. Once available, you may re-‐take the reading quiz assignment as many 747 times as you wish before the due date for the reading assignment. If you experience 748 computer problems, please contact the online helpdesk (936-‐294-‐2780) before the 749 assignment is due. The reading quizzes will be available for a week, or more, before 750 they are due. They can be retaken as many times as you want before the due date 751 and it is the highest score that is accepted. The quizzes are randomly created from a 752 pool of questions. The pool typically consists of 60 to 90 questions. Because the 753 computer randomly selects questions from the question pool when it generates a quiz, 754 each version of the quiz will be different and may consist of some questions that are 755 repeated, as well as new questions. The more times you take it, the more questions you 756 will see before the test. We suggest you complete the reading quizzes early in case you 757 have questions or computer problems. Because the reading quizzes are available for an 758 extended period of time and can be re-‐taken before the due date, late reading quizzes 759 will not be accepted. Again, we do not recommend waiting to the last available day to 760 complete the reading quizzes, as you may experience computer and/or technical issues. 761 By attempting the quizzes earlier in the week, you will ensure you earn a higher grade 762 and submit the assignment on time. 763 764 As regards the reading assignments, I strongly recommend that you thoroughly read 765 the material – don’t just skim it. If you try to avoid actually reading the material 766 and, instead, merely skim the chapter until you find something that ‘looks right,’ 767 you will not learn the material. This technique really doesn’t work because, as 768 emphasized throughout the course, facts presented in isolation from one another 769 don’t make sense. You have to see the connections among the facts in order to 770 make sense of them – and to remember them! This is why reading all of the 771 material for comprehension does work! 772

773 Pacing your work is the key to not being overwhelmed. 774 775

19

Once the quizzes have been submitted, the answers will be posted on BB. A 776 screen will show you which questions you earned credit on and which you missed. 777 In many cases, explanations are provided for the answers as well. Many students 778 print off their completion reports for study guides. Please remember that this course is 779 about understanding and reasoning – not memorization. So, you should always look 780 over the completion reports to ensure that you understand the concepts. In other 781 words, the quizzes and completion reports serve as a study 782 guide for the readings. 783 784 There are a total of 570 points possible for these quizzes, including 20 points for the 785 syllabus quiz. Together, these are worth 12.2% of the course grade. 786 787

Case Studies and Peer Evaluation 788 789 In this class, students will be divided into groups by the instructor. Each group will 790 consist of about 5 students who will work together throughout the semester on both 791 case studies and the three group homework assignments that will be completed outside 792 of class. As you will see, group scores are usually better than individual scores, and 793 so this process normally improves an individual’s grade. In addition, group effort 794 helps everyone learn the material better because everyone is involved in teaching 795 one another. So, individuals normally do better on tests as a result of this prior group 796 preparation process – assuming they put in the effort. Group work in lecture constitutes 797 12.4% of the total course grade. Groups also will be formed in lab, and group work in 798 lab constitutes 9.6% of the total course grade. So, in total, group scores comprise 799 22% of one’s grade in the course. 800 801 Many students are initially uneasy about the idea of working in groups because it 802 is often the case that, in previous classes, some members of their group did all or most 803 of the work, while others did little or nothing – but everyone received an equivalent 804 grade. This should not be a problem in this course because of the importance of group 805 peer evaluation procedures to a student’s grade. The procedures for performing peer 806 evaluations are described below. 807

808 Peer Evaluation Process 809

810 If you are in a group consisting of 5 members (including yourself), you will be allotted 811 40 points to distribute among the members of your group following each group 812 assignment. You do not give points to yourself. (If you are in a group of 6 members, you 813 will be given 50 points, etc…) If you believe that everyone contributed equally to the 814 group work, then you would pay/give everyone 10 on the assignment. If everyone in 815 the group feels the same way, then everyone receives a total of 40 points from their 816 peers, which results in an average score of 10 (40/4 = 10). Please note that 10 is the 817 maximum number of points that may be awarded. 818 819 You must be fair in your assessments, but if someone in your group did not contribute 820 adequately, then you should give them fewer points. If they were not present or did 821 not contribute to an assignment, they should receive no points. 822 823

20

It is imperative that you assign these scores PRIVATELY (NOT in front of your team 824 members) AND that you do this on the day the case study was conducted or the 825 assignment turned in! It is also critically important that you do not ‘agree’ to give 826 each other good scores. This is guaranteed to undermine the integrity of the 827 process and will inevitably result in bad feelings if someone in the group doesn’t 828 do his or her fair share of the work because he or she thinks they’re going to get a 829 good score no matter what they do. 830 831 Also, in order to be fair and accurate, DO NOT wait until the midterm or the end of the 832 semester to assign these participation scores (for reasons that will be apparent when 833 we discuss the limits of peoples' memories); rather, assign the scores immediately 834 after the assignment is completed. 835 836 At the end of the semester, your peer evaluation score is equal to the average of 837 the amount of peer evaluation points you received from the members of your 838 group -‐ converted to a percent. Accordingly, an average of 10 points equals 100%; 839 an average of 90 equals 90%, and so on. This score is then used to determine the 840 number of group points that you will receive at the end of the semester. If you 841 receive an average of 10, you will receive 100% of the points earned by your group on 842 the group assignments. If you receive an average of 9.2, then you will receive 92% of 843 the group points, and so on. 844 845 If you have an average of less than 7, you will not receive ANY of the group points. 846

847 Use the following additional criteria when assigning points: 848

849 1) Be fair! If a person made a genuine effort to contribute, then award 10. Do not give 850

points to a student for an assignment if that student was absent the day a group 851 assignment was done in class. And, do not give any points on a group homework 852 assignment if the person did not contribute. 853 854

2) You cannot give anyone in your group more than 10 points. (This prevents people 855 from giving their friends an unfairly large amount of points, which would 856 necessarily hurt other members of the group because there would be less points to 857 distribute to other group members). 858 859

3) You do not have to distribute all of the points. If someone does not contribute 860 appropriately, then give him or her less than 10 points. And, as stated previously, if 861 someone is absent in your group on the day of the assignment, then give him/her no 862 points; i.e., a zero. 863 864

865 4) As stated above, anyone receiving an average of less than 7.0 on his or her peer 866

evaluation at the end of the semester will automatically lose his or her group-‐867 based points. So, for example, if a student receives an average of less than 7.0 in 868 lecture, the student will lose all of the group-‐based points earned by the group in 869 lecture. This amounts to a maximum 580 points out of 4690 possible in the course 870 and constitutes 12.4% of the total course grade; i.e., just over one letter grade. In 871 the same way, if a student receives an average of less than 7.0 on his or her peer 872 evaluation in lab, the student will lose all of the group-‐based points in lab, which is a 873

21

maximum of 450 points. This equals 9.6% of the total course grade. And, if a 874 student received less than 7.0 in both lecture and lab, they would lose up to 22% of 875 the total course points; i.e., more than 2 letter grades. The point is, “Do your best to 876 contribute to the groupJ !” 877

878 It is the last rule that normally ensures everyone will contribute to the group’s 879 efforts. Also, the fact that the score is an average prevents anyone who might be unfair in 880 the awarding of points from single-‐handedly undermining the final grade of a group 881 member. And, if one student gives a score that is much less than those of other students 882 (which implies that it is unfair), I have the option of ignoring that score. In fact, I can 883 override a low average score if there is evidence that the grade was unfairly assigned by the 884 group. This serves as a safety net for each student. 885 886 887 This type of peer-‐evaluation method has been used in many universities and works very 888 well. Students like it because it encourages everyone to pull their own weight and 889 contribute to the group. 890 891 Example: Imagine that a student named Linda received peer evaluation amounts in lecture 892 of 8, 10, 9, 10, and 10, for a total of 47, which is an average of 9.4, or 94%. John received all 893 10s and so received all of the group points. Billy, who skipped class, didn’t sit with his 894 group, and contributed very little to the group, received scores of 2, 0, 3, 0, and 2 for a total 895 of 7 points and an average of 1.4, or 14%. So, Linda received 94% of the group’s overall 896 grade for the semester. With an average of 14%, poor Billy lost 580 points, which means his 897 overall course grade dropped by 1.2 letter grades. And, because his average was 71% 898 before the deduction, Billy failed the course (71% -‐ 12.2% = 58.8%). This is not the happy 899 ending any of us wants to see! 900 901

How to Earn a Good Peer Evaluation Score 902 903

1) Sit with your group every day and learn everyone’s names. Get to know them. 904 905 2) Come prepared to contribute to the case studies and quizzes by attending all classes (so 906

you know what’s going on), and reading the assigned material. In other words, make 907 sure you can and do contribute constructively to the discussions. 908

909 3) Be positive and friendly and treat the other members of the group the way you want to 910

be treated. In other words, be courteous and respectful of others’ comments and ideas -‐ 911 even if you don’t agree with them. Be willing to accept that your initial thoughts might 912 be incorrect, but also don’t be afraid to courteously express your views even if they are 913 different from those of others in the group. 914

915 4) Contribute significantly to the group homework assignments. Do your part and do it on 916

time – not at the last minute. * You should keep a copy of what you have written in case 917 there is a dispute regarding your contribution. Remember, I can override the group’s 918 evaluation in the unlikely event that it was unfair. However, this normally requires 919 that you be able to document what you contributed so that I can base my decision 920 on evidence rather than hearsay. 921

922

22

5) Come to any and all group meetings and, if you absolutely cannot be at a meeting because 923 of work or other legitimate schedule conflicts, make sure you keep in touch with the 924 group via e-‐mail, Facebook, or phone and let them know ahead of time that you can’t 925 come. Most people will understand if they know someone has legitimate reasons for not 926 attending a meeting. But, you need to contribute ideas, written material, etc., even if you 927 can’t join the group in person. 928

929 An initial, trial peer evaluation will be done approximately half way through the 930 semester. This evaluation will NOT count as part of the grade and will serve only to give 931 each person feedback from the members of his or her group so that he or she can correct 932 any problems that might exist. 933 934 Very important note: Although points are not given for completing peer evaluations, 935 points will be deducted if the rules described above were not followed and/or if you 936 do not submit a peer evaluation for your group members. Specifically, 40 points will 937 be deducted for not submitting a peer evaluation when it is requested. So, please do 938 the evaluation! 939

940 Homework Assignments 941

942 There will be three group homework assignments worth a total of 400 points (8.5% of 943 course grade). These assignments entail analyses of actual arguments and claims. For 944 example, the first assignment involves evaluating a series of arguments. The second 945 assignment entails an analysis of a product that is available to “help maintain your health”. 946 The question your group will try to answer is, “Does it work?” “Is it based on science or 947 pseudoscience?” Doing these assignments will help you evaluate the innumerable claims 948 you will encounter in your life. 949 950 The third assignment is known as FiLCHeRS and is worth 220 points. This assignment 951 involves the application of the FiLCHeRS rules (which are discussed in class) to an analysis 952 of an extraordinary claim you will be assigned to evaluate. The assignment consists of both 953 multiple choice and short answer questions and is a capstone assignment in that it entails 954 using information learned throughout the course to evaluate the claim. 955

Attendance and Make-‐up Policies 956 957 This course abides by University Policy and Regulations concerning attendance (See the 958 Undergraduate Catalog). Accordingly, “regular and punctual attendance" is expected of 959 each student at Sam Houston State University: 960 961 In a course such as this, in which group effort is a significant part of the grade, students 962 genuinely need to come to class so that they can contribute to their group’s success. Those 963 who are prepared and contribute positively will be highly valued by their group! This 964 course also moves quickly and many ideas build on one another and are used throughout 965 the course. So, if a student misses class, he or she will almost certainly be hurt academically. 966 In short, attendance matters and is required. 967 968 Because attendance is so important, I give each student 150 points at the beginning of the 969 semester. Although this is part of the total points possible for the course, it is non-‐academic 970 (i.e., not dependent on tests and assignments) and so serves as a grade cushion. All you 971

23

have to do to keep these points is to come to class. How much easier can it get! However, 972 because attendance is so important, students will lose 30 points for each unexcused 973 absence after the first absence. (In order for an absence to be excused, some form of 974 documentation must be provided to show that it was legitimate; this can include a 975 physician's note, a funeral announcement, legal notice, etc. The documentation must be 976 provided within one week of returning to class.) Also, tardies can be counted as absences. 977 So, if a student misses 6 times, is tardy 6 times, or has some combination thereof (e.g., three 978 unexcused absences and three tardies), he or she will lose their 150 points, which equals 979 3.1% of his or her total grade. 980 981 If someone misses more than 6 times, that student automatically FAILS THE COURSE 982 983

So, please come to class! 984 Examples 985

0-‐1 absence/tardies – no point deduction 986 2 absences/tardies – 30 points 987 3 absences/tardies – 60 points 988 4 absences/tardies – 90 points 989 5 absences/tardies – 120 points 990 6 absences/tardies – 150 points (3.1%) 991 > 6 absences/tardies = F 992 993 Please understand that these policies are intended to prevent students from 994 failing the class because of skipping so many classes that they can’t learn the 995 material. In effect, these attendance rules keep most students on track and 996 reduces the number of students that might otherwise fail the course. 997 998

1. In addition to the required attendance/tardy policy, it is important that you stay for 999 the entire class -‐-‐ please do not leave the class room early unless you are sick or 1000 have cleared it with me before class begins. Students can be counted absent if they 1001 leave the class early without permission. 1002

1003 2. If you know you will miss a class (because of an excusable event, such as an "away" 1004 baseball game and you are a member of SHSU's baseball team), let me know ahead of 1005 time and we can make arrangements for a make-‐up exam. 1006

1007 If, for whatever reason, you miss an exam, please contact me as soon as possible to 1008 determine if and when the exam may be made-‐up. Make-‐up exercises and exams are 1009 only allowed based on my approval, and only if you have contacted me within a 1010 reasonable amount of time (one day!) following the absence. 1011

1012 3. Late Work Policy: The three group homework assignments are to be turned in 1013 at the beginning of class (on the day they are due). These assignments can be 1014 handed in a maximum of one class period after the due date; however, points 1015 will be deducted depending upon how late it is submitted. If, for example, the 1016 homework assignment is due on Tuesday at 9:30 AM, but is handed in on 1017 Tuesday at 1 PM, 5% will be deducted. If the paper is turned in on Wednesday, 1018 10% of the value of the assignment will be subtracted. And if it is submitted at 1019

24

the beginning of the class on the Thursday immediately following the Tuesday 1020 due date/time, 20% will be deducted. It must be emphasized that, after that 1021 date, the assignment cannot be turned in and no grade will be received for the 1022 assignment. 1023

1024 * This late policy does not apply to the reading quizzes. These cannot be 1025 completed after the due date and time. 1026

1027 Please check BlackBoard as soon as the grades are posted. Students have a 1028 maximum of two weeks to contest a grade. For example, if the grade is incorrect, 1029 or if it was not posted, you need to notify me within two weeks of my posting of the 1030 grade. After two weeks, if no errors have been reported to me, the grade stands as is. 1031

1032 What happens if you miss a Case Study? If you miss a case study in lecture because of 1033 an excused absence, you can partially make it up by completing it on your own. This will 1034 entail writing an essay response to any questions that may have been asked in class 1035 regarding the case, as well as taking the quiz over the case study. The maximum score 1036 that a student can achieve is the score earned on the assignment, OR the group’s 1037 score – whichever is lower. This policy ensures that your grade is tied to the group grade, 1038 but it also provides some grade ‘cushion’ for those that may be sick or unable to come to 1039 class on the day of the case study, while also discouraging students from simply skipping 1040 the day of a case study. Please remember that your group must (based on the rules for 1041 peer evaluations) give you a zero for group participation on the case study if you are 1042 absent. 1043 1044

Lab Grades 1045 1046

The lab grade will consist of both individual scores and group-‐derived scores. Most of 1047 the labs will be based on case studies that will involve instructor-‐led discussions in which 1048 members of groups work together to develop responses, propose hypotheses and 1049 experimental designs, or offer explanations for what has been reported or observed. In 1050 short, labs involve a lot of discussion – both within each group and among groups. The lab 1051 instructor will facilitate these discussions. The discussions make the labs fun and 1052 interesting because they are not based simply on rote memorization and fill-‐in-‐the-‐blank 1053 activities; rather, they involve group discussion and exploration of topics. 1054 1055 At the beginning of the lab, each student will be given a short, Individual Lab 1056 Quiz (ILQ) over the information provided in the lab readings and relevant readings 1057 assigned in lecture. This is intended to ensure that everyone reads the lab exercise 1058 and textbook background readings (listed on the lecture syllabus) before coming 1059 to class so they will be prepared for the lab discussion. The quiz will include some 1060 vocabulary terms listed at the end of the lab exercise and related lecture notes and 1061 readings. Questions will be multiple-‐choice and/or short answer essay. 1062 1063 At the end of the lab, each group will be given a Group Lab Quiz (GLQ) regarding 1064 the information covered in lab. The group will work together as a team to complete 1065 it. Groups will be created by the lab instructor at the beginning of the year. The 1066 purpose for the group work is to enhance understanding of the material by having 1067

25

group members help teach each other the material and reinforce the key concepts 1068 covered in the lab. The group scores obtained over the semester will be adjusted by 1069 the peer evaluation score the student receives from his/her peers using the 1070 procedures outlined on the peer evaluation form. 1071 1072 A total of 10 lab case studies will be completed and students will be allowed to 1073 drop both their lowest individual and their lowest group lab grade. 1074 Accordingly, the lab quizzes, both individual and group, total 1140 points. These 1075 points will account for approximately 24.4% of your overall course grade. 1076 1077 In summary, students can earn 690 individual points and 450 group points. Please 1078 remember that, in this course, the lecture and lab grades are combined to 1079 determine your overall course grade. Thus, there is a total of 1140 lab points 1080 possible in lab. 1081 1082 In total, the lab portion of the course grade constitutes 24.4% of your grade – which is 1083 almost identical to the amount that would be earned relative to a standard lecture + lab 1084 class. In other words, if you took a science class in which the lecture and lab were separate, 1085 and earned 4 hours of credit for this combination, the lab would constitute 1 of 4 total 1086 hours, or 25% of the grade component for the science class. However, please remember 1087 that, in this course, the lecture and lab grades are combined to determine your overall 1088 course grade. 1089 1090

Extra Credit 1091 1092 At both the beginning and end of the semester, you will be given the opportunity to 1093 earn extra credit worth up to 9% of the total course grade! That’s 422 points! This 1094 opportunity to significantly improve your grade will be in the form of a critical thinking 1095 assessment – either the CAT assessment or the FSE assessment. This assessment, which 1096 will be given in lab, is required by the University’s reaccreditation requirements. It is 1097 extremely important that you do your best on both exams because your scores reflect upon 1098 the university and indicates how well our students are doing relative to students at other 1099 universities in the United States. It’s your chance to not only earn a lot of bonus points, but 1100 also to make SHSU look good! So, please do your best. 1101 1102 Each assessment is worth 120 points. The grading procedure for this assessment consists 1103 of simply adding the two scores together. However, if the sum of the two scores is above 1104 144 points, a multiplier is used to further increase the number of points you can earn. (It’s a 1105 bit like the multiplier used on some lotteries.) This means that the procedure for awarding 1106 bonus points is very generous. 1107 1108 For example, if you made a combined score of 110 points on the assessments, the 110 1109 points will be added to your grade. And, if your total on both assessments is greater 1110 than 144 points, you will receive even more extra credit points! The amount you 1111 would receive for scoring above 144 points is equal to the number of points you earn above 1112 144, multiplied by 2 – with a maximum of 190 extra points possible. (190 points is 1113 equal to 4% of the course grade.) So, if you received the maximum number points on 1114 these exams, you would receive a grand total of 430 bonus points (9% of the course 1115

26

grade), which is almost an entire letter grade! This is why it’s important to do your best 1116 on both assessments. 1117 1118 For example, if you made a 70 the first time you took the assessment and a 95 the second 1119 time, you would have earned a total of 165 points. Because the combined score for the two 1120 assessments is 21 points more than 144 points, the multiplier is used and you would earn 1121 42 more bonus points in addition to the 165 you’d already earned: 165 -‐ 144 = 21; 21 x 2 = 1122 42; 165 + 42 = 207 total bonus points). *Because these are bonus points, they would NOT 1123 be adjusted by a peer score. They’re all yours! 1124 1125 Because you are being asked to take this critical thinking assessment at the beginning of the 1126 semester (the pre-‐test) before you have been taught the course material, we do not want 1127 you to be discouraged if you do not do as well as you might have expected on the pre-‐test. 1128 That is why we give additional bonus points if you achieve a combined score above 144 – 1129 which is a mere 60% of the possible points on the assessments! Because the score on the 1130 second assessment (the post-‐test) SHOULD improve if you learn from the course and 1131 you do your best on the assessment, you can easily make a good overall score and earn a 1132 significant number of bonus points. You should know that a few students have actually 1133 earned the maximum number of bonus points possible! 1134 1135 Please note that these assessments are the only possible sources of extra credit in the 1136 course. In other words, no individual extra credit is given and, with the exception of one 1137 individual and one group lab grade, no other grades are dropped. 1138

1139 Grade Determination 1140

1141 Your grade is based on the percentage of points earned relative to the 1142 maximum number possible for the course (4,690). The percentage of the total 1143 possible points determined by individual effort is 78% (3658 out of 4690 possible), 1144 and that determined by group effort is 22% (1143 out of 4690 possible). So, 1145 although group effort is fundamentally important to the design of the course and to 1146 the way in which labs and case studies are run, your grade is determined 1147 primarily by your individual scores; i.e., by your individual effort. In short, you 1148 are ultimately responsible for the majority of the grade points you earn in the 1149 course. The group work should help you do better by helping you learn the 1150 material more thoroughly. 1151 1152 Please note that The State of Texas REQUIRES that universities have students engage 1153 in group activities because it is crucial to their career preparation. This is an 1154 additional reason why group work is required and why you will evaluate one 1155 another’s contributions to the group. 1156 1157 All of the tests and assignments for the course, including lab assignments, are listed in the 1158 Grade Form on page 13. To keep track of your grades, you need to record each and 1159 every grade you receive on this form. (Please note that Black Board will not calculate 1160 your grade; it’s simply a place to store the grades for individual assignments.) 1161 1162 Using the form below, you can estimate your grade at any point in the semester by 1163 comparing the total number of points you have earned to-‐date to the total number of points 1164

27

possible at that point in the course. You can only estimate the grade because, prior to the 1165 end of the semester, your score on group work will not be adjusted based on your peer 1166 evaluations. However, you should have a very good sense of how you are doing based on 1167 the original, unadjusted group scores coupled with your awareness of your 1168 participation in the group. 1169

Abbreviations used in grade form 1170 1171 Lecture component Lab Component 1172 CS = Case Study ILQ = Individual Lab 1173 Quiz 1174 RQ = Reading Quiz GLQ = Group Lab Quiz 1175 SQ = Syllabus Quiz 1176 HW = Homework 1177

CT = Critical Thinking Test 1178 1179

28

Grade Record Form 1180 I. Lecture Grades (75.7% of total) II. Lab Scores (24.4% of total) 1181 1182 Individual grades 1. Individual Lab Scores (14.8%) 1183 1. Test grades (48%) ILQ 1 _____ (74) 1184 Test 1 ______ (750) ILQ 2 _____ (77) 1185 Test 2 ______ (750) ILQ 3 _____ (77) 1186 Test 3 ______ (750) ILQ 4 _____ (77) 1187

A. Total test = _______ ILQ 5 _____ (77) 1188 ILQ 6 _____ (77) 1189

2. Reading Quizzes (12.2%) ILQ 7 _____ (77) 1190 SQ 1 ______ (20) ILQ 8 _____ (77) 1191 RQ 1 ______ (60) ILQ 9 _____ (77) 1192 RQ 2 ______ (40) ILQ 10 ____ (77) 1193 RQ 3 ______ (60) 1194 RQ 4 ______ (60) F.Total Individual ____ (Drop lowest ILQ) 1195 RQ 5 ______ (60) 1196 RQ 6 ______ (40) 1197 EnvHW_____(50) 1198 RQ 7 ______ (60) 1199 RQ 8 ______ (60) 2. Group lab Scores (9.6%) 1200 RQ 9 ______ (60) GLQ 1 _____ (50) 1201 B. Total Quiz = ______ GLQ 2 _____ (50) 1202

GLQ 3 _____ (50) 1203 3. Group Grades in Lecture (12.4%) GLQ 4 _____ (50) 1204

NASA CS _____ (60) GLQ 5 _____ (50) 1205 Xango CS _____ (60) GLQ 6 _____ (50) 1206 Argument HW_____ (90) GLQ 7 _____ (50) 1207 Water HW _____ (90) GLQ 8 _____ (50) 1208 Vacc/Autism CS _____ (60) GLQ 9 _____ (50) 1209 FiLCHeRS HW _____ (220) GLQ 10 ____ (50) 1210 1211 Total group lecture = _______ Total group ______ (Drop lowest GLQ) 1212 1213

C. Total group x peer score = ______ G. Total group x peer score _____ 1214 1215

4. Attendance (150 pts.) (3.1%) 1216 -‐30 for each unexcused absence or tardy -‐ after the first absence or tardy 1217

D. Total Attendance ____ (150 max. if no absences) 1218 1219 5. Extra Credit: Critical Thinking Assessment Scores (worth up to 9%) 1220

CT pre-‐test _____ (120 max) 1221 CT post-‐test ____ (120 max) 1222

E. Total CT points _____ 1223 1224

29

To obtain your final grade (percent), add the totals labeled A, B, C, 1225 D, E, F and G, divide by 4690, and multiply by 100. 1226

Point range for final course grade 1227 1228

A = 4221-‐4690 D = 2814-‐3282 1229 B = 3752-‐4220 F = less than 2814 1230 C = 3283-‐3751 1231

1232 Academic Honesty: All students are expected to engage in all academic pursuits in a 1233 manner that is above reproach. Students are expected to maintain complete honesty and 1234 integrity in academic experiences both in and out of the classroom. Any student found 1235 guilty of dishonesty in any phase of academic work will be subject to disciplinary action that 1236 is consistent with university policies. Please read the following: 1237 1238

1) Students are encouraged to study in groups to prepare for tests. However, “group 1239 effort” is definitely not permitted when taking exams! This will result in an 1240 automatic zero on a test. Two such occurrences will result in an F in the course. 1241

1242 Proper Course Behavior: All of these rules are standard and are based on common 1243 courtesy, respect, and honesty – all of which are necessary to ensure a positive learning 1244 environment. 1245 1246

1) Students will refrain from behavior in the classroom that intentionally or 1247 unintentionally disrupts the learning process and, thus, impedes the mission of the 1248 university. Cellular telephones, pagers and ALL other electronic communication 1249 devices must be turned off before class begins. 1250 1251 Students are prohibited from eating or drinking in class, using tobacco products, 1252 making offensive remarks, reading newspapers, sleeping, talking at inappropriate 1253 times, wearing inappropriate clothing, or engaging in any other form of distraction. 1254 Inappropriate behavior in the classroom will result in a directive to leave class. 1255 Students who are especially disruptive also may be reported to the Dean of Students 1256 for disciplinary action in accordance with university policy. 1257

1258 2) Please do not use cell phones or I-‐pods in class at any time, unless instructed to 1259

do so, because it distracts not only you, but the instructor and other students. If 1260 you use a laptop computer or I-‐Pad, please use it only to access the lectures. 1261 1262 If you have an emergency-‐type situation that requires that you be in cell 1263 phone contact with someone (e.g., relative in hospital; spouse overseas in the 1264 military), then please tell me before class begins and put the phone in the 1265 vibrate mode. 1266

1267 3) Please come to class on time—there is no reason to be late to class on a frequent 1268

basis. 1269 1270

4) Please remain in class until it is finished because leaving early disrupts the 1271 class and will count as an absence unless you have cleared it with me, or 1272

30

unless it is an emergency. If you have a job that overlaps with class time, then you 1273 need to drop the course or change your work schedule. 1274

1275 5) Please remove hats during exams. 1276 1277 6) For obvious reasons, students CANNOT LEAVE THE ROOM DURNING AN 1278

EXAM and then return. If this happens, the test will be taken up and your grade 1279 will be based on the portion of the test that you completed. If you have a cold or 1280 allergy, please bring tissues to class so that you won’t want to leave to get 1281 tissues during the test. 1282

1283 Study Tips: Please read and follow these tips to enhance your grade in the course. I want 1284 you to do well! 1285 1286 1. This course deals with arguments and evidence for or against certain claims. So, 1287 in order to study, you should imagine that you have been asked to write an essay 1288 in which you must present evidence and arguments to either support or refute a 1289 claim. This helps you learn and retain the material – and it makes the learning 1290 process more fun and interesting. This approach amounts to pretending that you 1291 are teaching the material to someone else. You cannot simply memorize your notes 1292 and definitions and expect to do well on the tests. You must truly understand the 1293 material in order to obtain a good grade. 1294

1295 2. Take notes. Although significant amount of the information covered in class is presented 1296 in abbreviated form on the Power Point lectures, you will almost certainly need to write 1297 additional notes in order to recall, integrate, and understand the information. In 1298 addition, note taking requires active listening; i.e., a conscious attempt to determine what 1299 is important and to look for connections between ideas. Lectures aren’t simply a bunch 1300 of facts and definitions thrown together. In the class, the lectures are arguments 1301 either for or against certain claims and you’ll need to understand the arguments. 1302

1303 3. Review your notes before the next class. Constant reviewing will help you learn the 1304 material in smaller ‘bites’ of information – which makes it much easier to learn. Just as 1305 importantly, reviewing your notes before the next lecture will help you see how the 1306 previous material connects with the material to be covered in the upcoming class. 1307

1308 4. This course requires that students learn a significant amount of material on their own, 1309 independent from the lecture material. Furthermore, the reading quizzes are based on 1310 the reading material! So, reading the textbooks and reader for this course really, 1311 truly is a necessity. The ability to learn on your own is one of the most important 1312 skills you will learn in college, and it is one of the most important skills that 1313 employers look for in job candidates. 1314

1315 5. When it comes time to review for an exam, first read the highlighted portions of the text, 1316 then concentrate on your notes. You might also want to follow the procedures below: 1317

1318 a. As you review your notes, first concentrate on absorbing the key ideas and 1319

understanding the organization of the material -‐ why certain ideas followed others in 1320 the class and how they are related. 1321

1322

31

b. Once this is done, begin to focus on the details -‐ the “whys.” As stated above, tests in 1323 this course are absolutely not based on the mere memorization of definitions, or 1324 on the recognition of verbatim statements from lecture; rather, the test questions 1325 assume you already know the definitions and that you understand the concepts 1326 discussed in lecture. So, you will not be asked definitions; rather you will be 1327 asked to apply facts and principles, i.e., to think with the information you have 1328 learned. Of course, you have to know the definitions to begin the process of 1329 answering questions; so, by all means, learn the definitions as the first step in learning 1330 the materialJ 1331

1332 Visitors in the Classroom: Unannounced visitors to the classroom must present a current, 1333 official SHSU identification card to be permitted in the classroom. They must not present a 1334 disruption to the class by their attendance. If the visitor is not a registered student, it is at 1335 the instructor's discretion whether or not the visitor will be allowed to remain in the 1336 classroom. This policy is not intended to discourage occasional visiting of classes by 1337 responsible persons. 1338 1339 Americans with Disabilities Act: Any student seeking accommodations should go to the 1340 Counseling Center and Services for Students with Disabilities at the very beginning of the 1341 semester and complete a form that will grant permission to receive special 1342 accommodations. Please do not wait until test day to do this – the request for 1343 accommodations must be done at the beginning of the semester and students that 1344 have permission to use the services at the Counseling Center must make 1345 appointments several days ahead of scheduled tests. Walk-‐ins aren’t permitted. Also, 1346 please be sure to send me an e-‐mail two days before an exam to remind me to take the test 1347 to the Counseling Center. 1348 1349 Religious Holy Days: If a student desires to be excused from class, assignment, or a test on 1350 a religious holy day, then the student must notify the instructor of each scheduled class that 1351 he/she will be absent for religious reasons. In such cases, the student will be required to 1352 take the test or submit the assignment early—unless there are good reasons for not being 1353 able to do so and the instructor has agreed to those reasons. 1354 1355 Special Circumstances: If unusual circumstances arise during the semester, such as a 1356 medical problem, death in the family, etc., which adversely affects your attendance PLEASE 1357 discuss this with me immediately and provide documentation. Don’t wait until the 1358 end of the semester to discuss the problem with me. If you keep me informed, I will 1359 gladly do my best to accommodate your situation. However, please understand that, 1360 because of the nature of the course, there are limits as to how much can be excused and so, 1361 at some point, it may be necessary for you to drop the course. Also, if you wait until after-‐1362 the-‐fact, at the end of the semester, to let me know that you were experiencing these 1363 adverse circumstances, there is nothing I can do about it at that time. I cannot retroactively 1364 make accommodations and I do not give extra credit assignments to make up for grade 1365 deficiencies. 1366 1367 SCHEDULE: *This schedule is subject to change at any time based on class progress. 1368 Major lecture topics are listed in bold-‐face, black font. 1369 1370

Reading assignments are in green font and include 1371

32

all material covered since the preceding quiz 1372 Case studies are in blue font. 1373 Tests are in orange font. 1374

Reading Quizzes are in red font. 1375 Homework assignments are in purple font. 1376

1377 Please note that some of the readings include only sections of a chapter 1378 (indicated by the word “part”), whereas others include the entire chapter, 1379 indicated by the word “all”. Please don’t wait until the last minute to do the 1380 readings! 1381 1382

• FOS = Foundations of Science (custom edition of the Conceptual Integrated 1383 Science textbook by Hewitt et al. 1384

• Schick = How to Think about Weird Things by Schick and Vaughn 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390

Lectures Labs 1391 1392 1st 1/15 Introduction to course: Weird Things People Believe and No 1393 lab 1394 “Witch Trials of the Past and Present: Why Evidence 1395 and Reason Matter” 1396 Read FOS -‐ Chapter 1 all: “About Science” pp. 1-‐14 1397 Read Schick – Chapter 1 all: “Close Encounters 1398

With the Strange” pp. 1-‐13 1399 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1400 2nd 1/20 Complete Witch Trials and begin Nature of Science No lab 1401 Read Schick Chapter 6: “Science and Its Pretenders” 1402 part 158-‐181 (nature of science & scientific reasoning) 1403 Read Schick – Chapter 3: “Arguments Good, Bad 1404 and Weird” parts 33-‐39 and 49-‐57. (Pay particular 1405 attention to pages 49-‐55 dealing with informal 1406 fallacies. You will reference these throughout the course) 1407 1408 1/22 Continue Nature of Science lecture 1409 Collect student information for creating groups 1410 Syllabus Quiz due 1411 Reading Quiz 1 due 1412 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1413 3rd 1/27 NASA Activity Labs Begin & 1414

Read Schick Chapter 4: Extra Credit -‐ 1415 Pre 1416

33

“Knowledge, Belief and Evidence” parts 62-‐84 and 1417 summary on page 90 (opinion vs. knowledge and expertise) 1418 Argument Homework assigned: due 2/19 1419 1420

1/29 Nature of Science lecture 1421 “Why Things Aren’t Always What They Seem to Be” 1422

Reading Quiz 2 due 1423 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1424 4th 2/3 Begin lecture on the Limits to Perception and Memory Checks Lab 1425 Read Schick Chapter 5: “Looking for Truth in 1426

Personal Experience” part 96-‐143 (perception and memory 1427 problems) 1428

1429 2/5 Continue Limits to Perception and Memory 1430

Reading Quiz 3 due 1431 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1432 5th 2/10 Xango Case Study Salem Lab 1433

Read FOS Chapter 2 all: “The Universe” pp. 15-‐34 1434 1435 2/12 Continue Limits to Perception and Memory 1436

Read FOS Chapter 3: “The Atom”35-‐56 1437 Read FOS Chapter 4 “Energy and Momentum” 57-‐76 1438 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1439 1440 6th 2/17 Begin Astronomy 1 Lecture: 1441 Perception lab 1442

“What are those Lights in the Sky? Stars, Planets, Galaxies” and 1443 “The Size of the Universe” 1444 Read Schick Chapter 7: "Case Studies in the 1445 Extraordinary” part 234-‐248 (UFO abductions) 1446

1447 2/19 Continue Astronomy 1 lecture 1448 Argument Homework due 1449 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1450 7th 2/24 Test 1 (NOS & LPM) Astrology Lab 1451

Read Schick Chapter 4: "Knowledge, Belief and 1452 Evidence” part 84-‐90 (astrology section) 1453 Read FOS Chapter 5 “Heat” 77-‐98 1454

1455 2/26 Continue Astronomy 1 lecture 1456

Reading Quiz 4 due 1457 Read the Laws and Relativity lecture posted on BB. 1458 This information is critical to doing the Star 1459 Trek lab – especially the section on relativity. 1460

-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1461 8th 3/3 Begin Astronomy 2 Lecture: “The Big Bang and Star Trek Lab 1462

34

the Nature of the Universe – or is it a Multiverse?” 1463 Read FOS Chapter 6: "Describing Motion" 99-‐116 1464 Read FOS Chapter 7: "Newton’s Laws of Motion" 1465 117-‐138 1466 1467

3/5 Complete Astronomy 2 lecture 1468 “Ghost Busting with Newton’s Laws” 1469 Read Power Point lecture on Black Board titled “The 1470

Paranormal – Part 1: History of Ghosts, Psychic 1471 Energy, Psychic Powers, Psychic Detectives, 1472 Psychic Healers and Mediums.” 1473

****Mid-‐term peer evaluation due**** 1474 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1475 3/10 Spring Break 1476 3/12 Spring Break 1477 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1478 9th 3/17 Begin Paranormal Phenomena – Part 2 lecture Haunting Lab 1479

AAW Water Homework assigned; 1480 Part 1 (individual component) due 4/7 1481 Part 2 (group component) due 4/14 1482 Read Schick Chapter 2 all: “The Possibility of the 1483 Impossible” pp. 14-‐29 (the possibility of ESP and 1484 precognition) 1485 Read Schick Chapter 6: “Science and Its Pretenders” 1486

part 197-‐213 (parapsychology) 1487 Read Schick Chapter 7: “Case Studies in the 1488 Extraordinary” parts 220-‐227 and 248-‐276 1489 (talking to the dead, near-‐death experiences, and 1490 ghosts) 1491

3/19 Continue Paranormal Phenomena – Part 2 lecture 1492 Reading Quiz 5 due 1493

-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1494 10th 3/24 Begin CAM 1 lecture on “Complimentary, Alternative, CAM Lab 1495 and Quack Medicines and Diets: take two ginkgo tablets 1496 and some homeopathic elixir and you'll be fine!” 1497 Read Schick Chapter 7 (homeopathy) part 227-‐231 1498 Read Schick Chapter 7 (climate change) part 283-‐288 1499

1500 10th 3/26 Test 2 (Astronomy, Laws, and Paranormal) 1501 Read Schick Chapter 5 “Looking for Truth in 1502 Personal Experience” part 141-‐150 (anecdotal 1503 evidence, placebo effects and controlled studies) 1504 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1505 11th 3/31 Continue CAM 1 lecture Geology lab 1506

Read FOS Chapter 8: "Human Biology – Care and 1507 Maintenance" 139-‐160 1508

35

1509 4/2 Begin CAM 2 lecture 1510

Reading Quiz 6 due 1511 Read FOS Chapter 9: “Rocks and Minerals parts 161-‐184 1512

-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1513 12th 4/7 Continue CAM 2 lecture Natural Selection 1514 Lab 1515

Read FOS Chapter 10: “Plate Tectonics” 1516 pp. 185-‐210 1517

Read FOS Chapter 11 all: “The Solar System” 1518 pp. 211-‐232 1519 Water Homework part 1 due 1520

1521 4/9 Vaccine-‐Autism Case Study 1522

Reading Quiz 7 due 1523 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1524 13th 4/14 Atlantis and Crystal Power; What Rocks Extra Credit -‐ 1525 Post 1526 and Minerals Can and Can’t Tell Us” 1527 Begin lecture on The Origin of Planet Earth (Geology) 1528

Water Homework part 2 due 1529 FiLCHeRS assigned; due 4/30 (no late work accepted) 1530 1531 4/16 Finish Geology lecture and 1532 begin Cryptids lecture – “Legendary Creatures and a Discouraging 1533 Lack of Evidence: Nessie, Big Foot, and the Chupacabra!” 1534

Read FOS Chapter 12: "The Basic Unit of Life – the 1535 Cell" pp. 233-‐260 1536 Read FOS Chapter 13 all: "Genetics" – pp. 261-‐286 1537 Read Schick Chapter 8 all: "Relativism, Truth and Reality” 1538 -‐-‐ pp. 295-‐315 1539

-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1540 14th 4/21 Finish Cryptid lecture and Whale Lab 1541 Begin lecture on genetics -‐“Can Vulcans and Humans 1542 Make Babies? The Genetic Code of Life” 1543

Reading Quiz 8 due 1544 1545

Read FOS Chapter 14 all: "Evolution” -‐-‐ pp. 287-‐316 1546 Read Schick Chapter 6: “Science and Its Pretenders” 1547 part 181-‐197 (creationism) 1548 1549

4/23 Finish Genetics and begin Evolution 1550 1551 15th 4/28 Continue Evolution lecture 1552

Reading Quiz 9 due 1553 1554

36

4/30 “There is Grandeur in this View: Evolutionary 1555 Theory as the Foundation of Biology: Scientific 1556 Synthesis and Consistency” 1557

Homework FiLCHeRS due 1558 Peer evaluations due 1559

-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ 1560 1561 Final – Covers material on Alternative Medicines and Diets, Geology, Cryptids and 1562 Principle of Ecology Power Point, Genetics, and Evolution and RQ 6 (dealing with 1563 Schick Chapter 5), RQ 7, and RQ 8, as well as the related lab material. It is not a 1564 comprehensive final exam, but you do need to know the logical fallacies and critical 1565 thinking tools used throughout the course. 1566 1567 1568

Final Exam Time: Tuesday, May 5th from 8:00-‐10:00 AM 1569 1570

1571 • A summary list of all of the READING QUIZZES, their due dates, and the 1572

chapters they cover is provided on the next 2 pages. 1573 1574 A summary list of the group homework assignments is provided on the 1575

last page of this document.1576

37

Reading Quizzes for Spring Semester 2015 1577 1578

* All quizzes are due by 5:00pm on their respective dates below. If you 1579 experience computer or submission trouble, please contact the helpdesk (936-‐1580 294-‐2780). Once the assignment has opened, you may take the quiz as many 1581 times as you wish, until the time it is due. 1582

1583 • Schick = How to Think about Weird Things by Schick and Vaughn 1584 • FOS = Foundations of Science text. * In addition to the new, custom 1585

Foundations of Science (FOS) page numbers, the earlier Conceptual Integrated 1586 Science (CIS) page numbers are also listed after the FOS page numbers in 1587 case you have the earlier edition. They are shown in green, italicized font. 1588

• PowerPoint lectures on BB are in purple 1589 1590 1591

Quiz 1: Thursday 1/22 1592 1) Schick – Chapter 1 all: “Close Encounters with the Strange” pp. 1-‐13 1593 2) Read FOS -‐ Chapter 1: “About Science” pp. 1-‐14 1594 (CIS – Chapter 1 all: “About Science” pp. 1-‐12) 1595 3) Read Schick Chapter 6: “Science and Its Pretenders” part 158-‐181 (nature of 1596

science and scientific reasoning) 1597 4) Read Schick – Chapter 3: “Arguments Good, Bad and Weird” parts 33-‐39 and 49-‐1598

57. (Pay particular attention to pages 49-‐57 dealing with informal fallacies) 1599 1600

Quiz 2: Thursday 1/29 1601 1) Read Schick Chapter 4: “Knowledge, Belief and Evidence” parts 62-‐84 and 1602

summary on 90 (opinion vs. knowledge and expertise) 1603 1604

Quiz 3: Thursday 2/5 1605 1) Read Schick Chapter 5: “Looking for Truth in Personal Experience” part 96-‐143 1606 (perception and memory problems) 1607 1608

Quiz 4: Thursday 2/26 1609 1) Read FOS Chapter 2: “The Universe” pp. 15-‐34 1610 (CIS Chapter 28: all “The Universe” pp. 649-‐666) 1611 3) Read FOS Chapter 3: “The Atom” pp. 35-‐56 1612 (CIS Chapter 9: “The Atom” part 167-‐179) 1613 4) Read FOS Chapter 4: “Energy and Momentum” pp. 57-‐76 1614 (CIS Chapter 4 on Energy part 63 -‐74) 1615 5) Read Schick Chapter 4 Knowledge, Belief and Evidence” part 84-‐90 (astrology 1616

section) 1617 6) Read Schick Chapter 7: Case Studies in the Extraordinary” part 234-‐248 (UFO 1618

abductions) 1619 7) Read FOS Chapter 5: “Heat” pp. 77-‐98 1620 (CIS Chapter 6 “Heat” part 98-‐104) 1621

38

1622 1623 1624 1625

Quiz 5: Thursday 3/19 1626 ~1) Laws and Relativity lecture posted on BB. This information is critical to the Star 1627

Trek lab 1628 2) Read FOS Chapter 6 “Describing Motion” pp. 99-‐116 1629 (CIS Chapter 2 all: "Describing Motion" pp. 17-‐30) 1630 3) Read FOS Chapter 7: "Newton’s Laws of Motion" pp. 117-‐138 1631 (CIS Chapter 3: "Newton’s Laws of Motion" part 36-‐49) 1632 ~4) The Paranormal lecture posted on BB– Part 1: History of Ghosts, Psychic 1633

Energy, Psychic Powers, Psychic Detectives, Psychic Healers and Mediums.” 1634 5) Read Schick Chapter 2 all: “The Possibility of the Impossible” pp. 14-‐29 (the 1635

possibility of ESP and precognition) 1636 6) Read Schick Chapter 6: “Science and Its Pretenders” part 197-‐213 1637

(parapsychology) 1638 7) Read Schick Chapter 7: “Case Studies in the Extraordinary” parts 220-‐227 and 1639

248-‐276 (talking to the dead, near-‐death experiences, and ghosts) 1640 1641

Quiz 6: Thursday 4/2 1642 1) Read Schick Chapter 7 (homeopathy) part 227-‐231 1643 2) Read Schick Chapter 5 “Looking for Truth in Personal Experience” part 141-‐150 1644

(anecdotal evidence, placebo effects and controlled studies) 1645 3) Read FOS Chapter 8: Human Biology – Care and Maintenance” pp. 139-‐160 1646

(CIS Chapter 20: "Human Biology II – Care and Maintenance" part 461-‐463 and 1647 page 70 on the "Placebo Effect" 1648

ENV Homework: 4/2 1649 1) Read Schick Chapter 7 (climate change) part 283-‐288 1650 * This assignment includes an analysis of claims regarding global climate change. 1651

The information for this will be included as part of the assignment. 1652 1653

Quiz 7: Thursday 4/9 1654 1) Read FOS Chapter 9: “Rocks and Minerals” pp. 161-‐184 1655

(CIS Chapter 23: “Rocks and Minerals" parts 531-‐537 and 541-‐552 1656 2) Read FOS Chapter 10: “Plate Tectonics” pp. 185-‐210 1657

(CIS Chapter 22 all: “Plate Tectonics” pp. 505-‐526 1658 3) Read FOS Chapter 11: “The Solar System” pp. 211-‐232 1659

(CIS Chapter 27 all: “The Solar System” pp. 320-‐338) 1660 1661

Quiz 8: Tuesday 4/21 1662 1) Read FOS Chapter 12: "The Basic Unit of Life – the Cell" – pp. 233-‐260 1663 (CIS Chapter 15: "The basic Unit of Life – the Cell" -‐ parts 319-‐328 and 334-‐336 1664

(cell reproduction) 1665 2) Read FOS Chapter 13 all: "Genetics" – pp. 261-‐286 1666 (CIS Chapter 16 all: "Genetics" – pp. 348-‐368) 1667

39

3) Read Schick Chapter 8 all: "Relativism, Truth and Reality” pp. 295-‐315 1668 1669

Quiz 9: Tuesday 4/28 1670 4) Read FOS Chapter 14 all: "Evolution” pp. 287-‐316 1671

(CIS Chapter 17 all: "Evolution” pp. 372-‐396) 1672 5) Read Schick Chapter 6: “Science and Its Pretenders” part 181-‐197 (creationism) 1673 1674

1675 1676 1677 1678

Group Homework Assignments 1679 1680 * These are group assignments and descriptions of them will be provided at the time 1681 they are assigned. 1682

1683 The argument assignment and the AAW Water Homework assignments require 1684 both individual and group effort. So, time must be allotted to coordinate work with 1685 the group members. 1686 1687 The FiLCHeRS homework assignment consists of both short answer and multiple 1688 choice questions. Some questions will require that you look up information on the 1689 Internet. For these questions, you will be asked to cite the web addresses of the 1690 sites you consulted to obtain the information. 1691

1692 1. Argument HW – assigned 1/27 1693 -‐ due 2/19 1694 1695 2. Water HW – assigned 3/17 1696 -‐ Part 1 due 4/7 1697 -‐ Part 2 due 4/14 1698 1699 4. FiLCHeRS HW– assigned 4/14 1700 -‐ due 4/30 1701

1702 1703

Documents

Redesigning a General Education Science Course to Promote Critical Thinking