Redesigning A General Education Science Course To Promote Critical Thinking

CBELife Sciences Education
Vol. 14, 112, Fall 2015
Article
Redesigning a General Education Science Course to Promote
Critical Thinking
Matthew 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, 2015
Monitoring 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 education (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.
INTRODUCTION
If we teach only the findings and products of science
no matter how useful and even inspiring they may
bewithout communicating its critical method, how
can the average person possibly distinguish science
from pseudoscience?
Sagan, 1996, p. 21
CBE Life Sci Educ September 2, 2015 14:ar30
DOI:10.1187/cbe.15-02-0032
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 instructional materials and assessments other than the Critical thinking Assessment Test (CAT). K.R.H. is an employee in the Center for Assessment & 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 instructors interested in reviewing the materials for potential use in
A primary goal of education in general, and higher education 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 undergraduate careers, reducing their employment potential upon
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 (marcusg@shsu.edu).
2015 M. P. Rowe, B. M. Gillespie, etal. CBELife Sciences Education 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 AttributionNoncommercialShare Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).
ASCBand The American Society for Cell Biology are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology.
14:ar30, 1
Supplemental Material can be found at:
http://www.lifescied.org/content/suppl/2015/07/24/14.3.ar30.DC1.html
Downloaded from http://www.lifescied.org/ by guest on August 13, 2015
M. P. Rowe, B. M. Gillespie, et al.
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 pseudoscientific claims (Walker et al., 2002; Johnson and Pigliucci,
2004; Impey etal., 2011; Carmel and Yezierski, 2013).
The inadequacy of standard approaches to teaching science is demonstrated by the fact that 93% of American adults
and 78% of those with college degrees are scientifically illiterate (Hazen, 2002); that is, they do not understand science
as an empirically based method of inquiry, they lack knowledge of fundamental scientific facts, and they are unable to
understand the science-related material published in a newspaper 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 Tennessee found that, while science majors knew more science facts
than nonscience majors, there were no differences between
the two groups in their conceptual understanding of science 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 woeful 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 citizens, 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, leading 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 (Johnson and Pigliucci, 2004; Alberts, 2005), often reinforced by
exams that reward memorization over higher-order thinking
(Alberts, 2009; Momsen etal., 2010); the reluctance to directly
engage students misconceptions (Alters and Nelson, 2002;
Nelson, 2008; Alberts, 2005; Verhey, 2005); the failure to connect science as a way of knowing with decisions faced by
students in their daily lives (Kuhn, 1993; Walker etal., 2002);
and the resistance of faculty trained in more innovative pedagogical 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 Americas 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 etal., 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 Science (FoS), selected as the centerpiece of the Quality Enhancement Plan for reaffirmation at Sam Houston State University
(SHSU; Sam Houston State University, 2009). Per Sagans
(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 students attention but also, and as importantly, helped demonstrate the utility of evidentiary thinking in their daily lives.
A brief list of the central tenets of the course is provided below; more detail is available in the Expanded Course Rationale and Structure in our Supplemental Material.
Critical Thinking
Our central hypothesis was that critical thinkingdefined
as the ability to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence, logic, and intellectual honestyis inherent to scientific 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, operational approach to critical thinking is provided by Bernstein etal.
(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 being asked to accept? 2) What evidence supports the claim?
3) Are there alternative explanations/hypotheses? And, finally, 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 examinedfully,
thoughtfully, and honestly. Sounds like science, doesnt it?
But how can we get science-phobic college students to use it?
Perhaps by focusing on topics the nonscience student finds
interesting, including astrology, homeopathy, Bigfoot, and
even intelligent design. But arent these ideas just pseudoscientific 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 include a discussion of common heuristics and several logical
fallacies, some examples being correlation proves causation,
14:ar30, 2
Critical Thinking and Gen Ed Science
appeal to the masses, and ad hominem attacks. An understanding 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 evaluation of claimswhether scientific or pseudoscientific.
Integrating Content with Process

While 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 etal., 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 nonscience student. One
of our cases, for example, examines the purported connection between vaccines and autism (Rowe, 2010). Working
in small groups, students examine the data from Andrew
Wakefield etal.s (1998) paper, the proverbial match that lit
the current firestorm of antivaccine hysteria (Mnookin, 2011;
Offit, 2011). After dissecting Wakefields data and his conclusions, 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 procedural underpinnings of good science. But the students also
learn about antibodies, antigens, herd immunity, and autism
spectrum disorders, that is, the findings of science. Similarly, 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 population 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 Barriers

An emphasis on evidentiary thinking combined with an integration of content and process will achieve little if students
are unable or unwilling to objectively evaluate a claim, hypothesis, or theory. Cognitive barriers can stand in the way
of rational decision making (Posner etal., 1982; Sinatra etal.,
2008). We designed the FoS course to overcome two such barriers. 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, experienced 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 understand 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 shortcuts 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 competing explanations requires that students understand cognitive
dissonance and its servant twins, expectation bias and confirmation 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 etal.,
2014) of the rebellion against childhood immunizations. Results of the study, which surveyed 1759 parents, are discouraging, in that an intervention presenting the overwhelming
evidence that vaccines do not cause autism made parents less
likely to vaccinate, not more (Nyhan etal., 2014).
Social judgment theory (SJT) offers an explanation of
Nyhan etal.s (2014) counterintuitive results. SJT postulates
there is a range, a latitude, of ideas similar to a persons current 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 persons 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 overcome 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 Organization
We 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 common question we frequently pose to the students is What is
the harm in believing in something that is not true? The students, 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 focus on the satanic ritual abuse mass hysteria of the 1980s
Vol. 14, Fall 2015
14:ar30, 3
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 students, with little emotional investment and, thus, little dissonance, 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 Occams razor, that is, the foundations of
science. We stress the importance of self-correction, a characteristic 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 perception and memory mentioned earlier, topics critical for understanding 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 Feynmans 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 somewhat atypical side trips to explore the paranormal and investigate 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 broadened, they are ready to tackle the scientific theory many find
the most discomforting of all.
METHODS
Institutional Setting
Our experiment was conducted at SHSU, a public, doctoral
research university located in Huntsville, Texas. Founded in
1879, it offers 138 bachelors, masters, 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
as international. The average age of the institutions undergraduates 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 effectiveness of the FoS course with several traditional introductory 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 Approach
We used a pretest versus posttest design to assess the effectiveness of the FoS. Our treatment group consisted of several sections of the experimental course taught over multiple semesters (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 Tools
To examine changes in student analytical skills, we used the
Critical thinking Assessment Test (CAT) developed by the
Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning at Tennessee Tech University (TTU; Stein and Haynes, 2011; Stein
etal., 2007). The CAT exam assesses several aspects of critical thinking, including the evaluation and interpretation of
information, problem solving, creative thinking, and communication. Student skills encompassed by the CAT include
their ability to interpret graphs and equations, solve basic
math problems, identify logical fallacies, recognize when additional information might be needed to evaluate a claim,
understand the limitations of correlational data, and develop 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 emphasizes 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 programmatic changes designed to improve critical thinking among college 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 Theory 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
14:ar30, 4

Table 1. CAT scores in traditional versus experimental gen ed science courses, by semester
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CAT
CAT
Incentivec pre score post score
Course
Treatmenta
Term
Designb
Introductory geographyd
Introductory geologye
Introductory biologyf
Introductory geographyd
Introductory environmental
studiesg
Introductory physicsh
Introductory chemistryi
FoSj
FoSj
FoSj
FoSj
FoSj
FoSj
T
T
T
T
T
Fall 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Spring 2009
Fall 2010
36
40
37
39
10
Post only
Post only
Post only
Post only
Pre and post
None
None
None
None
EC
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
E
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
16
25
53
53
47
69
25
25
Pre and post

Pre and post
Pre and post
Pre and post
Pre and post
Pre and post
Pre and post
Pre and post
EC
EC
PoC
PoC
PoC
PoC
EC
EC
tactual (df)
Prepost Effect
p value size
17.07
15.00
15.05
14.66
14.91
16.90
t(9) = 0.232
ns
13.94
13.16
16.03
17.95
15.52
14.95
13.41
12.25
14.63
13.68
19.77
22.43
19.98
19.60
17.75
16.16
t(15) = 0.696
t(24) = 0.586
t(52) = 5.385
t(52) = 5.872
t(46) = 4.848
t(68) = 8.999
t(24) = 3.984
t(24) = 3.310
ns
ns
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
+0.71
+0.76
+0.36
+0.84
+0.85
+0.83
T = traditional (i.e., comparison) gen ed science course for nonmajors; E = experimental FoS course.
Before the introduction of the FoS course in the Fall of 2009, the CAT assessment was conducted only once, at the end of the semester.
c
EC = extra credit; PoC = part of the course grade.
d
GEOG 1301: Weather and Climate.
e
GEOL 1304: Historical Geology.
f
BIOL 1308: Contemporary Biology.
g
BIOL 1301: Environmental Science.
h
PHYS 1305: Fundamentals of Physics.
i
CHEM 1306: Inorganic and Environmental Chemistry.
j
Cross-listed as both BIOL 1436 and GEOG 1436: Foundations of Science.
a
students (Moore and Cotner, 2009; Nadelson and Southerland, 2010; Peker etal., 2010; Kim and Nehm, 2011; Abraham
etal., 2012).
Beginning in the Fall of 2010, approximately half the students 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 incentives 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 selected 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 assessment 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
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 developed assessment tool.
Assessment Reliability and Validity

Arguments regarding the effectiveness of the FoS course demand both reliability and validity. While these concepts are
frequently ignored (Campbell and Nehm, 2013), researchers
who address the issues of reliability and validity often mistake them as required properties of ones 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 demonstrated reliability and validity, at least for certain populations (Rutledge and Warden, 1999; Rutledge and Sadler,
2007). A recent study (Wagler and Wagler, 2013), however,
found the MATE lacked construct validity for Hispanic elementary 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.
Vol. 14, Fall 2015
14:ar30, 5
Statistical Analyses
Pretest versus posttest changes in student scores on the CAT
were analyzed using a matched-pairs t test. Personal identifiers were not available in our MATE assessments, preventing 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 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 students entering ability by using his or
her precourse CAT score as the covariate. The ANCOVA
assumptions of regression-slope homogeneity and treatment-covariate independence were met. As a further aid to
understanding the strength of our results (Maher etal., 2013),
we also report our effect sizes (Cohens d). Results presented
in the text are mean 1 SE.
Sample Sizes
CAT. We have CAT results for eight semesters (Table 1), beginning 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 comparison group from six different traditional gen ed science
courses (with one course, introductory geography, being assessed twice); and 272 students representing our experimental 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. Beginning 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 traditional 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 students available from the Center for Assessment & Improvement 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
FoS course. Similarly, we have posttest MATE scores from

1250 undergraduates, with 417 representing the three traditional courses and 833 from the five semesters of the FoS
course.
RESULTS
Critical Thinking
FoS 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 traditional 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 semester (all p values < 0.01, Cohens 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 813)
versus the pooled posttest CAT scores for all six traditional gen ed science courses (Table 1, rows 17) reinforce this
finding; students completing the FoS course scored significantly higher (19.76 0.35) than did students completing a
traditional (14.83 0.37) introductory science course for nonmajors (t(473) = 4.93, p < 0.001, Cohens 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 813)
versus the pooled CAT scores for the three different gen ed
science courses (introductory environmental studies, introductory physics, and introductory chemistry) for which we
had pre- and postcourse CAT test scores (Table 1, rows 57)
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, Cohens 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, students 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 students precourse CAT
score as a covariate. Results adjusting for each students entry-level critical-thinking ability still showed a highly significant 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 precourse 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, Cohens d = 0.339).
14:ar30, 6
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 students). 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, Cohens d = 0.22) and highly significantly better CAT scores (19.54 0.41, t(165) = 14.305,
p < 0.001, Cohens 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) students (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-division FoS students (again pooled over all six semesters,
rows 813 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 average (19.04 0.05) for juniors and seniors (t(105) = 4.287,
p < 0.001, Cohens d = 0.42); this deficit is erased, however,
Figure 1. Students who complete the experimental FoS course show

significant improvement in their critical-thinking scores, as measured 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 813) vs. the pooled posttest CAT scores for all
six traditional gen ed science courses (Table 1, rows 17). (B) Pooled
pre- vs. posttest CAT scores for all six semesters of the FoS course
(Table 1, rows 813) vs. the pooled CAT scores for the three different
gen ed science courses (introductory environmental studies, introductory physics, and introductory chemistry) for which we had preand postcourse CAT test scores (Table 1, rows 57). (C) Posttest CAT
scores adjusted by pretest CAT scores for the same data set used in B.
Lower- versus Upper-Division Students and Comparison

with National Norms. Analyzing our results by class standing not only presents a more detailed picture of where our
intervention might be most effective but also permits a comparison with national norms. We have pre- and posttest CAT
scores for 166 students who completed the FoS course when
Figure 2. Nonscience 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 taking such core courses until they are juniors or seniors, but both cohorts 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 813 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 813 in Table 1)
compared with national norms.
Vol. 14, Fall 2015
14:ar30, 7

Table 2. MATE scores in traditional versus experimental gen ed science courses, by semester
Pre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Course
Treatment
Introductory environmental
studiesb
Introductory physicsc
Introductory chemistryd
FoSe
FoSe
FoSe
FoSe
FoSe
Post
Term
MATE score
MATE score
Fall 2010
33
70.64
28
68.00
t(59) = 0.579
T
T
E
E
E
E
E
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
Fall 2012
129
399
136
143
233
239
131
67.25
64.18
64.57
68.39
67.31
66.30
63.17
92
297
137
136
216
226
118
66.48
64.13
74.15
76.21
78.46
76.16
69.25
t(219) = 0.423
t(694) = 0.047
t(265) = 5.940f
t(277) = 4.792
t(447) = 8.678
t(463) = 7.914
t(247) = 3.396
tactual (df)
Prepost
p value
Effect
size
ns
ns
ns
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
= 0.001
+0.72
+0.57
+0.82
+0.73
+0.43
T = traditional (i.e., comparison) gen ed science course for nonmajors; E = experimental FoS course.
BIOL 1301: Environmental Science.
c
PHYS 1305: Fundamentals of Physics.
d
CHEM 1306: Inorganic and Environmental Chemistry.
e
Cross-listed as both BIOL 1436 and GEOG 1436: Foundations of Science.
f
This comparison required a t test for unequal sample variances: the adjusted df = 264.94.
a
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 Evolution

Results on the MATE parallel those from the CAT; in no semester 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 experimental course showed highly significant improvement each
semester (all p values 0.001, all Cohens d > 0.43; Table 2).
A pooled analysis comparing students across all semesters in
the experimental course with students from the three different traditional courses further highlights the success of the experimental approach; students who completed the FoS course
showed highly significant improvement in their acceptance
Figure 3.Students who complete the experimental FoS course

show a significant increase in their acceptance of evolution, as measured 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 48) vs. the pooled
MATE scores for the three different gen ed science courses (introductory environmental studies, introductory physics, and introductory chemistry) for which we had pre- and postcourse MATE scores
(Table 2, rows 13). Histograms show means + 1 SE.
of evolution (pretest = 66.17 0.45, posttest = 75.45 0.49;

t(1686.15) = 13.93, p < 0.001, Cohens d = 0.67), while there was
no change in the acceptance of evolution for students completing a traditional course (pretest = 65.27 0.56, posttest =
64.91 0.71; t(976) = 0.40, p = 0.69; Figure 3).
DISCUSSION
Critical Thinking
Our 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 significant 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 & Improvement 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 improvement in their critical-thinking skills typically requiring multiple 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 students, 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
14:ar30, 8
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 significantly 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 students critical-thinking
skills. An alternative interpretation is that the nonscience
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 former 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 students, compared with national norms, is gone by the end of
the semester (Figure 2B).
Student Acceptance of Evolutionary Theory

Results 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 evolution. But to what degree? Rutledge and Sadler (2007), authors
of the MATE, have identified five levels of acceptance associated with their instrument: very high (89100), high (7688),
moderate (6575), low (5364), and very low (<52). At the
beginning of the semester, students in the FoS course exhibited, 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 macroevolution 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 students (75.0 0.52) was similar to the average post-FoS MATE
score for students in this study (75.45 0.49). The preintervention 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 nonmajors in this study), as were the effect sizes of the two interventions (Cohens d for Wisconsin = 0.19; Cohens d for this
study = 0.67). The similarities in postintervention scores given the dissimilarities in preintervention scores of these two
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 comparison 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 introductory gen ed chemistry or physics classes, given that biological 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 appreciate 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 theory 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 individuals 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 explanation 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 individuals
content knowledge about evolution or his or her disposition 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 nonscience college student
with evolution (see also Pigliucci, 2007; Lombrozo et al.,
2008).
Assessment Validity, Revisited

Wagler and Wagler (2013) criticized the construct validity
and, thus, the generalizability of the MATE for populations other than the high school teachers used to originally
test the tools validity (Rutledge and Warden, 1999). The
Waglers found, for example, that the MATE lacked construct 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 attribute it claims to measure (Brown, 2000); for the MATE, the
attribute is thought to be an individuals acceptance of the
theory of evolution (Rutledge and Warden, 1999). One technique for assessing construct validity uses factor analyses
with structural equation modeling to identify the number
of dimensions of the construct; if a significant unifying dimension or dimensions cannot be identified, the tool may
be suspect; this was the approach used to demonstrate that
Vol. 14, Fall 2015
14:ar30, 9
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 interpretations (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Messick, 1995; Brown,
2000, 2005; Campbell and Nehm, 2013). Two related experimental 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. Differential-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) focusing 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 sections of the course spanning multiple years, highly significant 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 intervention.
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 capacity as director of the Office of Institutional Research & Assessment 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-access, secure hard drive; all physical tests were then destroyed. The
MATE data are stored on a limited-access, secure server administered 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 macroevolution in undergraduate students. CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 152164.
Alberts B (2005). A wakeup call for science faculty. Cell 123, 739741.
Alberts B (2009). Redefining science education. Science 323, 437.
Alters BJ, Nelson CE (2002). Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution 56, 18911901.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
(1993). Project 2061Benchmarks for Science Literacy: A Tool for
Curriculum Reform, Washington, DC.
AAAS (2010). Vision and Change: A Call to Action, Washington, DC.
CONCLUSIONS
Arum R, Roksa J (2010). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on

College Campuses, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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 willingness 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 students, 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 toward this end.
Arum R, Roksa J (2014). Aspiring Adults Adrift: Tentative Transitions 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 Longitudinal 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). Psychology, 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, 812.
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, 530541.
Carmel JH, Yezierski EJ (2013). Are we keeping the promise? Investigation of students critical thinking growth. J Coll Sci Teach 42,
7181.
14:ar30, 10

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, 281302.
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, 550558.
Ede A (2000). Has science education become an enemy of scientific
rationality? Skeptical Inquirer 24, 4851.
Erwin P (2014). Attitudes and Persuasion, New York: Psychology
Press.
Eve RA, Dunn D (1990). Psychic powers, astrology and creationism in the classroom? Evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among
high school biology and life science teachers. Am Biol Teach 52,
1021.
Facione PA (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus 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, Snchez CA, Facione NC, Gainen J (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. J Gen Educ 44, 125.
Feynman RP, Leighton R (1985). Surely Youre 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 performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 111, 84108415.
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 International Joint Conferences on Computer, Information, System Sciences, and Engineering 10, 14.
Hazen RM (2002). Why should you be scientifically literate?
ActionBioscience. www.actionbioscience.org/education/hazen.html
(accessed 7 February 2015).
Lombrozo T, Thanukos A, Weisberg M (2008). The importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. Evol Educ
Outreach 1, 290298.
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, 345351.
Messick S (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of
inferences from persons responses and performances as scientific
inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol 50, 741749.
Miller JD (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public
Underst Sci 7, 203223.
Miller JD (2012). What colleges and universities need to do to advance civic scientific literacy and preserve American democracy. 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 evolution. Science 313, 765766.
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 cognitive skills. CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 435440.
Moore R, Cotner S (2009). Educational malpractice: the impact of
including creationism in high school biology courses. Evol Educ
Outreach 2, 95100.
Morrison D (2011). Science denialism: evolution and climate change.
Reports Natl Center Sci Educ 31, 110.
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, 8288.
Nathan D, Snedeker M (2001). Satans Silence: Ritual Abuse and the
Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt, Lincoln, NE: Authors
Choice Press.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, 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 Indicators 2014, Arlington, VA: National Science Board.
Hewitt PG, Lyons SA, Suchocki JA, Yeh J (2013). Conceptual Integrated Science, 2nd ed., Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Nelson CE (2008). Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more

effectively: strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integr Comp Biol 48, 213225.
Impey C, Buxner S, Antonellis J (2012). Non-scientific beliefs among

undergraduate students. Astron Educ Rev 11, 112.
Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL (2014). Effective messages in

vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133, E835E842.
Impey C, Buxner S, Antonellis J, Johnson E, King C (2011). A twenty-year survey of science literacy among college undergraduates.
J Coll Sci Teach 40, 3137.
Offit PA (2011). Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement

Threatens Us All, New York: Basic.
Johnson AC (2007). Unintended consequences: how science professors discourage women of color. Sci Educ 91, 805821.
Pascarella ET, Blaich C, Martin GL, Hanson JM (2011). How robust

are the findings of academically adrift? Change 43, 2024.
Johnson M, Pigliucci M (2004). Is knowledge of science associated

with higher skepticism of pseudoscientific claims? Am Biol Teach
66, 536548.
Peker D, Comert G, Kence A (2010). Three decades of anti-evolution campaign and its results: Turkish undergraduates acceptance
and understanding of the biological evolution theory. Sci Educ 19,
739755.
Keppel G (1982). Design and Analysis: A Researchers Handbook,

2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pigliucci M (2007). The evolution-creation wars: why teaching more

science just is not enough. McGill J Educ 42, 285306.
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, 197227.
Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual
change. Sci Educ 66, 211227.
Kuhn D (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and

learning scientific thinking. Sci Educ 77, 319337.
Reardon S (2011). Climate change sparks battles in classroom.

Science 333, 688689.
Lanning KV (1992). Investigators Guide to Allegations of Ritual

Child Abuse, Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Rowe MP (2010). Tragic choices: autism, measles, and the MMR

vaccine. In: Science Stories: Using Case Studies to Teach Critical
Vol. 14, Fall 2015
14:ar30, 11

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 acceptance of the theory of evolution (MATE) instrument with university
students. Am Biol Teach 69, 332335.
Rutledge ML, Warden MA (1999). The development and validation
of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument.
Sch Sci Math 99, 1318.
Rutledge ML, Warden MA (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of
science and high school biology teachers: critical relationships. Am
Biol Teach 62, 2331.
Sagan C (1996). The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in
the Dark, New York: Ballantine.
Sam Houston State University (2009). QEP: SHSU: Foundations
of
Science.
www.shsu.edu/qep/documents/
QualityEnhancementPlanCombined.pdf (accessed 7 February
2015).
Schick T, Vaughn L (2014). How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Smith MU (2010b). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: II. Pedagogical issues. Sci Educ 19, 539571.
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 thinking assessment test. Change 43, 4449.
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 dissemination 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, 4146.
Seymour E, Hewitt NM (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview.
Verhey SD (2005). The effect of engaging prior learning on student

attitudes toward creationism and evolution. BioScience 55, 996
1003.
Sinatra G, Brem S, Evans EM (2008). Changing minds? Implications

of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evol Educ Outreach 1, 189195.
Wagler A, Wagler R (2013). Addressing the lack of measurement invariance for the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution. Int
J Sci Educ 35, 22782298.
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, 510528.
Wakefield A, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM (1998).

Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351, 637641.
Smith MU (2010a). Current status of research in teaching and learning

evolution: I. Philosophical/epistemological issues. Sci Educ 19, 523538.
Walker WR, Hoekstra SJ, Vogl RJ (2002). Science education is no

guarantee of skepticism. Skeptic 9, 2427.
14:ar30, 12
Supplemental Material
Rowe et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1. Expanded Course Rationale and Structure
Jon D. Miller, the Director of the International Center for the Advancement of Scientific
Literacy, wrote, the healthy functioning of democracy depends crucially upon the
existence of a literate public; and in modern industrial societies, true democracy must
embrace scientific literacy (Miller, 1998). We share this concern, as the lack of scientific
literacy adversely affects our ability, as a society, to make informed decisions about
science-related issues (Impey et al., 2012) such as global climate change, loss of
biodiversity, resource use, and the efficacy of vaccines. And, as discussed in the main
article, this situation also makes it difficult for people to judge the merits of wellestablished scientific theories, including the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang
Theory.
In order to address these issues, the Foundations of Science (FoS) course was designed to
focus on the development of critical thinking skills and basic scientific literacy defined
consistent with Millers definition as understanding key scientific terminology,
concepts, and theories and, most importantly, understanding science as a reliable way of
knowing about the natural world based on its use of critical thinking and logical
arguments, empirical evidence, skepticism, the scientific method, objectivity/intellectual
honesty, and peer review. This approach, as well as other aspects of the course design
discussed below, is also consistent with the recommendations put forward by the AAAS
in its Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993;
Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990), which was developed to establish recommendations for
science literacy in the U.S.
Nature of Science
Part of the rationale for developing an integrated science course, and one which addresses
science as a way of knowing, was the recognition that, if students take only two required
science courses in college, they will necessarily graduate with gaping holes in their
knowledge of science because they will have learned little or nothing of the key ideas in
the science disciplines that were not included in their coursework.
In addition, because undergraduate science courses typically do not address the nature of
science and scientific reasoning, students will not develop an understanding of the
rationale for the scientific method as a means of reducing or eliminating error, nor will
they develop their scientific reasoning skills and their ability to apply them to real-world
situations. Nor will they will be able to distinguish good science from bad science, or
real science from pseudoscience.
The fact that most Gen-Ed science courses do not address these concepts leaves graduates
unprepared to make informed decisions regarding science-related issues, and it makes it
far more likely they will reject well-supported theories in science. As evidenced by the
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
rise of an anti-vaccine movement in the U.S. and elsewhere, they may also reject the
well-established efficacy of vaccines and the health benefits afforded by them. Lacking
an understanding of the scientific methods by which medicines are tested for safety and
efficacy, and placing higher confidence in anecdotal accounts, many people abandon
thoroughly researched medical practices and treatments in favor of untested and even
harmful alternative medicines and practices. In short, there are numerous indicators
that people are implicitly rejecting the validity of the scientific method itself. This antiscience attitude has profoundly negative implications and consequences for society as
shown by the outbreak of whooping cough in the U.S. in 2012. More than 11,000 cases
were reported to the CDC, at least 12 of which were fatal. This was the largest number of
cases reported in the last 50 years (Rosenau, 2012). This outbreak of an entirely
preventable disease occurred because parents rejected the scientific basis of vaccines and
chose not to have their children vaccinated.
The critical thinking/scientific-reasoning framework of the course is encapsulated, as we
discussed in the paper, in a set of questions Bernstein et al. (2006) suggest be asked when
evaluating a claim. James Lett (1990) expanded those questions into a more formalized
set of rules known by the acronym FiLCHeRS, a framework we find particularly useful
for helping students distinguish science from pseudoscience. The easily assimilated
acronym (once students understand what it means to be filched) stands for Falsifiability,
Logic, Comprehensiveness of evidence, Honesty (as in intellectual honesty),
Replication of research, and Sufficiency of evidence, respectively. Every claim and
theory in the course, both scientific and pseudoscientific, is evaluated using Letts rules.
Our repeated use of the framework provides students with a systematic, coherent method
for analyzing claims. They quickly learn to spot pseudoscientific claims because such
claims violate many of the rules, while good scientific claims do not. In short, Letts
framework provides a compelling demonstration of the reliability of the scientific
method. Step-by-incremental step, we try to expand the students latitudes of acceptance
(see sections on SJT in the main manuscript and also below) by helping them understand
the power of science as a way of knowing.
Critical Thinking
In order to think critically, the student must first know what critical thinking is and value
it as an essential component of informed decision-making. They also must understand at
least some of the ways in which critical thinking can be subverted based on biases,
misperceptions, faulty memory, and cognitive dissonance so that they can avoid these
sources of error. For this reason, the lecture and lab include discussions and activities
that directly demonstrate limits in the accuracy of our students own perceptions and
memories. These activities are not only engaging, but they vividly demonstrate the
unreliability of anecdotal testimony and, by inference, the need for the scientific method.
Ultimately, any hypothesis or theory in science is based on an argument; therefore, it is
essential for students to understand the structure of an argument (premises and
conclusion), the characteristics of a valid and sound deductive argument, and the
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
characteristics of a reasonable, or sound, inductive argument. Therefore, as discussed in

the main article, we do something that is unique in a science course, but which is
fundamentally important to the success of the course; namely, we include a discussion of
arguments, as well as common heuristics and logical fallacies. Very few college students
are aware of what an argument is, or of heuristics and fallacies, prior to taking the course,
and few students would be exposed to them outside of a philosophy course; yet, an
understanding and awareness of them is essential to critical thinking and to the evaluation
of claims. Because the reliability of science as a way of knowing rests to a large degree
on the arguments it makes, students must understand what constitutes a good argument;
i.e., they must understand the necessity of having good reasons for either accepting or
rejecting a claim, which is based on an argument.
An example of this is provided by the argument we use to establish the multi-billion year
age of the universe. This argument is discussed in the section of the course dealing with
astronomy and the Big Bang Theory.
1) Premise 1: We can see galaxies located more than 13 billion light years away.
2) Premise 2: By definition, it takes light one year to travel a distance of one-light
year.
3) Conclusion: The universe must be at least 13 billion years old in order for light to
have reached us from galaxies located 13 billion lights years away.
Our students, having learned about arguments, can now recognize this is a valid and
sound argument, and so it is reasonable for them to conclude that the universe really is
billions of years old. Had they not learned about arguments, this conclusion might
otherwise carry little weight and its conclusion be dismissed as mere opinion.
Pseudoscience
One of the most important aspects of the course is that students are asked to use what
they have learned in the course, both scientific facts and critical thinking concepts, to
evaluate a variety of unsupported and/or pseudoscientific claims. The need to include
such extraordinary claims derives from the readily observable fact that the media
bombards people with such claims on a daily basis yet most people, including college
graduates, lack the scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills to evaluate them
(Johnson and Pigliucci, 2004). Consequently, many people uncritically accept them, as
happened recently when the Animal Planet channel ran two pseudo-documentaries on the
alleged existence of mermaids. The second documentary was the most watched show in
the history of the channel, with about 3.6 million viewers (Day, 2013). By incorporating
pseudoscientific and extraordinary claims into the course, and using scientific facts, laws
of nature, and critical thinking skills taught in the course, students gain real-world
experience in using this information to rationally evaluate claims and they learn science
in the process. This is consistent with an approach advocated by Martin (1994) who
argued that science teachers should include pseudoscience in their courses, not for
purposes of teaching it, but to help students learn to distinguish science from
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
pseudoscience and to critically evaluate claims. Were students taught science in this
manner, and armed with critical thinking skills as part of their science education, few
would fall for the sorts of claims presented in the mermaid pseudo-documentary or for
a host of other pseudoscientific claims that permeate our culture.
The evaluation of the pseudoscientific claim regarding the Loch Ness monster (Rowe,
2015) was mentioned in the main article. Another example concerns the evaluation of
claims pertaining to astrology which, according to SEI 2014 (National Science
Foundation, 2014), 42% of Americans believe is either sort of scientific (32%) or very
scientific (10%). Prior to the discussion of this topic, students first learn relevant
astronomy pertaining to stars, galaxies, and interstellar distances. They also learn about
the four fundamental forces of nature. Using this information, students can then begin to
evaluate the claim that a mere 200 stars, out of about 200 billion in our galaxy, somehow
exert through means that defy scientific understanding of the universe an effect on the
personalities of people and their lives based on the position of these stars (and planets) at
the time of their birth. By learning about the fundamental forces of nature (of which
there are only four and no more), students realize that the strong and weak nuclear forces
could not exert such an effect because their range is limited to the nucleus of an atom,
and that both the gravitational and electromagnetic force are too weak at those distances
to produce a biological effect. Indeed, they calculate that the doctor standing next to a
mother at the time of her childs birth exerts a gravitational force millions of times
greater than does the nearest star. And, even if these two forces do have the ability to
reach a person, students are asked to consider the related question of how, exactly, it
would affect personality and/or control a persons future? What is the proposed
mechanism? As students learn in the course, pseudoscience never offers a plausible,
observable, or testable mechanism to explain how alleged extraordinary or paranormal
phenomena are supposed to occur. In contrast, scientific explanations require that such a
mechanism be offered.
Critical Thinking and Psychological Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Ideas
Students also learn relevant psychology pertaining to the reasons why people may believe
astrology and other extraordinary claims are true even when there is no objective
evidence for them. In the case of astrology, the specific psychological factor that is
addressed is the Forer Effect (also called the Barnum Effect); i.e., the tendency of people
to think a general statement which applies to most anyone (such as that in a horoscope)
appears to apply exclusively to them. This combination of knowledge and analysis
enables students to understand that astrology is pseudoscience, but in the process of
discussing astrology, they learn about astronomy and physics, as well as relevant
psychological factors which influence our perceptions. In a similar manner, students use
the laws of nature and relevant psychology to evaluate claims about UFOs, alien
abductions, ghosts, and paranormal phenomena. In the process, they learn how easy it is
to misperceive events, or fall victim to critical-thinking pitfalls such as selective recall
and confirmation bias, and thereby incorrectly conclude that something is true when it is
not.
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
It is important to emphasize that, as instructors, we do not acting as experts tell our

students that the Loch Ness monster, or astrology, or any other claim in the course is
wrong; nor do we tell them that a scientific theory is correct and that they should simply
accept it because we say so. We let them judge the claims and theories for themselves
based on the evidence, relevant science, and critical thinking skills they have learned.
This compare and contrast approach reduces the likelihood of an automatic rejection of
a scientific explanation by eliminating the human tendency to reject an idea because it
was presented in such a way as to imply that the students freedom of choice is being
taken away from them; as in, Dont try to tell me what to think (Erwin, 2014).
Furthermore, evidence regarding some extraordinary claims is ambiguous and may yet
prove to be true. In such cases, this is acknowledged and it reinforces the fact that not
everything is clear-cut. We stress that science is a process of acquiring knowledge, and
much has yet to be learned. Just as importantly, we stress throughout the course that the
truth of an idea is not determined by whether we like it, or how many people believe it,
but by the quality of evidence and logic used to support it (the S and L in the FiLCHeRS
acronym). Our results show that this approach is successful in teaching students the
effectiveness of the scientific method and critical thinking in evaluating claims, and in
distinguishing science from pseudoscience.
In developing the course, we recognized that an appreciation of critical thinking and
acceptance of science and scientific theories involves far more than a students exposure
to scientific facts and the scientific method. Perhaps more importantly, it also involves
their worldview; i.e., their beliefs and attitudes toward science. These affect their
psychological readiness to examine various scientific theories and to engage in critical
thinking (Alters and Nelson, 2002). Especially as regards the Big Bang Theory and the
Theory of Evolution, students prior beliefs may prevent them from even considering the
possibility that these theories might be correct because the ideas are perceived as a threat
to their religious worldview. Failure to address this fundamentally important
psychological component of students thinking will almost inevitably result in a failure to
convince students that these ideas are not mere opinions but, rather, well-supported
theories based on empirical evidence. In short, if a scientific theory (or its implications)
is too far removed from a students current worldview, and if it is considered threatening,
it will almost certainly be summarily rejected; in fact, a student may become even more
convinced that it is wrong if simply presented with the scientific facts.
Accordingly, great care must be taken when discussing controversial topics so as not to
threaten the students religious worldview (see NOMA below) or reinforce these negative
perceptions. Furthermore, simply presenting the facts regarding these theories is unlikely
to produce a shift in their perceptions of these theories. However, Social Justice Theory
(SJT), which pertains to attitude change, provides a means of addressing this
psychological factor. According to this well-established theory, which is based on what
are termed latitudes of acceptance and rejection, a position that is substantially different
from a persons initial position can eventually be accepted if that persons latitude of
acceptance and rejection is incrementally shifted toward the new position. Small, gradual
shifts of opinion can lead to a willingness to consider once incongruent ideas (Benoit, no
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
date). In contrast, a single, big shift leading to the acceptance of a highly incongruent
idea does not usually occur. This is why a science course dealing with these topics
should include an in-depth discussion of the nature of science, critical thinking, and the
benefits of science, as well as information which will be relevant to the discussion of
evolution (e.g., the age of the earth and universe). This information should be discussed
before evolution is discussed because it leads to gradual shifts in students latitudes of
acceptance. Attempting to discuss evolution first, without having carefully laid a
foundation for it, will be unlikely to produce attitude change because it lies too far
outside a students latitude of acceptance.
Given that the Internet and airwaves are full of unfounded and pseudoscientific claims
made by people lacking relevant expertise in science, our discussion of critical thinking
also includes an evaluation of what constitutes an expert, especially a scientific expert
(e.g., relevant degree, publication record, etc.). This is critically important because, if
students cannot distinguish a reliable source of information from one that is not, they will
be more likely to accept pseudoscience and to reject real science. For example, if
parents think a celebrity is a better source of information regarding the efficacy of
vaccines, they might choose to not have their child vaccinated because they consider the
celebrity to be more knowledgeable than a doctor or the medical establishment.
Our working assumption for teaching both scientific facts and critical thinking concepts
in the same course is rather obvious; namely, if students have facts, but cannot think
logically, they will reach the wrong conclusion; and, if they can think critically, but lack
scientific knowledge, they will also reach the wrong conclusion. Both are necessary, and
by relating the critical thinking concepts to specific scientific and pseudoscientific claims,
students learn the concepts better.
Additional Information about Topics and Topical Organization
The course is organized into a sequence of topics specifically arranged so as to shift
students latitudes of acceptance and rejection in favor of science. In the main article,
reference was made to the discussion, at the beginning of the course, of witch hunts and
the Satanic Ritual Abuse cases as a means of demonstrating the necessity of both
scientific literacy and critical thinking in order to avoid harm. In other words, the point
of this discussion is to show that not only are science and critical thinking not bad things
to be feared or rejected, they are actually good things to be embraced because they
provide so many benefits to humanity and prevent so much harm.
One source of confusion we also address early in the course are the distinctions between
a fact, hypothesis, law, and theory. Understanding the distinctions between these terms is
essential because most students are confused by them (Alters and Nelson, 2002), and this
confusion serves, to some degree, as the basis for rejecting anthropogenic climate change,
the efficacy of vaccines, the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory (as in, they
are only theories). This confusion also leads students to embrace many pseudoscientific
concepts because, in the minds of many, theories are just opinions and their own
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
preferred opinion is just as good as the misguided opinions of scientists. The discussion
of the Big Bang theory is specifically intended to illustrate these distinctions and to
emphasize the nature of a scientific theory; i.e., that a theory is a well-established
explanation of what is observed. Once the students understand the observations upon
which the Big Bang theory is based, and the logic of the theory, they are much more
likely to accept it, and the multi-billion year age for the universe. The same applies to the
Theory of Plate tectonics and the Theory of Evolution. We also stress that no theory is
complete; i.e., that it is an approximation of reality and is subject to change based on new
evidence. This idea, which is the idea that science, unlike other ways of
knowing/thinking, is self-correcting, is stressed throughout the course.
Beginning with the discussion on astronomy, we make a concerted effort to inculcate a
sense of awe in our students a sense of the grandeur and wonder of the universe as
revealed by science. This, we hope, further helps students embrace science as a way of
knowing. In short, if science is seen as a source of beauty and wonder, rather than as a
boring, cold, heartless endeavor that diminishes a sense of wonder, students are more
likely to engage science. Many students, for example, develop an appreciation for
cosmology once they understand that they really, truly are made of stardust. How
wonderful.
In the second part of the course, we introduce students to the experimental method. This
includes such concepts as independent and dependent variables, confounding variables,
placebo effects, control groups, experimental groups, double-blind studies, experimenter
bias, and sample size. The emphasis, as always, is on sources of potential error and how
the scientific method attempts to control for them. We emphasize, either implicitly or
explicitly, that the procedures embedded in the scientific method for reducing and
eliminating error are what makes science a good thing something to be appreciated
rather than rejected.
These concepts are reinforced through a discussion of the FDA approval process,
followed by discussions and analyses of various complementary and alternative
medicines, such as homeopathy and therapeutic touch. As regards these two therapies,
students have learned enough at this point in the course to realize they clearly violate the
laws of nature, and any anecdotal evidence of their efficacy is due to a placebo effect,
spontaneous remission, misdiagnosis, etc. Knowing this enables students to draw the
conclusion that homeopathy and therapeutic touch are examples of pseudoscience. Just
as importantly, they learn that CAM claims in general are virtually never tested or
evaluated. Understanding this reinforces the efficacy of science and leads to healthy
skepticism of CAM claims in general.
Psychic research is covered following the discussion of CAM again with an emphasis
on the ways in which these phenomena, even if real, appear to violate our current
understanding of the laws of nature. The lack of successful replication of seemingly
positive results (the R in the FiLCHeRS rules) is also discussed as part of the analysis of
these claims. While not definitively debunking psychic phenomena, students come to
understand that the scientific community has not accepted the existence of paranormal
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
phenomena not because scientists are biased, but because the evidence is insufficient
to conclude that paranormal phenomena are real (the S in the FiLCHeRS rules).
Scientists also do not accept paranormal phenomena because they contradict a wellestablished body of knowledge in science. This principle of non-contradiction as a
criterion of truth (i.e., the necessity of logical consistency between a claim and wellestablished knowledge) is stressed throughout the course.
Following the foray into CAM and paranormal phenomena, we discuss principles of
geology and plate tectonics, the formation and age of the earth, rock types, relative and
absolute dating techniques, uniformitarianism, and finally genetics and evolution. By
providing evidence of the ancient age of the universe and earth through the discussion of
astronomy and geology, students more readily accept the scientifically established age of
the earth. For students who might otherwise be swayed by advocates of Young Earth
Creationism, this is critical for their potential acceptance of evolution because it shows
them that the earth is, in fact, ancient in age, having existed for the vast amount of time
required for biological evolution to have occurred (Smith, 2010a, b).
Furthermore, by continually demonstrating the reliability of science as a way of knowing
throughout the course, and specifically contrasting Creationism/Intelligent
Design/Irreducible Complexity with the evidence for evolutionary theory, we are able to
gradually shift the students latitude of acceptance toward a willingness to accept
evolution because they can see the evidence for themselves and the logic upon which it
is based.
The principle of logical consistency as a criterion for truth is particularly important in the
discussion of young-earth creationism because its acceptance requires the negation of
findings from astronomy, geology, paleontology, genetics, physics, and chemistry. In
short, it is inconsistent with these other fields; consequently, one would have to discard
virtually all of science, and the scientific method itself, in order to accept it. However,
only by establishing the validity of astronomy, geology, the scientific method, etc., earlier
in the course does this argument carry weight. This is why the topics are discussed in a
specific sequence and why evolution is covered last in the course. Without having laid
an appropriate foundation, the discussion of evolution earlier in the course would almost
certainly result in fewer students willingness to consider it and, in accordance with
Social Justice Theory, might actually lead them to reject not only the idea of evolution,
but other scientific conclusions discussed in the course as well.
As with the Age of the Universe argument, we also use an Evolution argument
which, after having covered genetics, mutations, and the evidence of evolution, is very
compelling to students. One version of the argument for evolution we use is:
1) Premise 1: Genetic change occurs; i.e., mutations occur producing new genes, new
alleles, and new genotypes. (*We also stress that, contrary to popular belief, not
all mutations are bad. This mistaken belief must be addressed because it
necessarily precludes an acceptance of evolution.)
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
2) Premise 2: Genetic changes can be passed from parent to offspring (i.e., the
changes are inherited from parents)
3) Premise 3: Natural selection occurs due to competition, with those
genotypes/phenotypes best suited to their current environment surviving and
producing more offspring
4) Conclusion: Changes in the allelic frequencies of a population necessarily occur;
therefore evolution occurs.
Students accept each of the premises and, having done so, they are more likely to accept
the conclusion that evolution occurs. Students recognize this as a valid and sound
argument. Indeed, at this point, we flip the question from Does evolution occur? to,
How could it not occur? Again, without understanding an argument, or what makes an
argument valid and sound, this approach would probably not be effective; hence the need
to include these concepts in a science course. Critical thinking/logic is essential to an
acceptance of evolution, as was shown by a study of non-major biology students. Those
who were less skilled in critical thinking were also more likely to hold nonscientific
beliefs and their nonscientific views were not easily changed (Lawson and Weser, 1990).
Limitations of Science
There is one additional aspect to this process that we think is of critical importance to the
observed shift in students willingness to accept, or consider, the Big Bang Theory and
the Theory of Evolution. In order to address concerns students may have that these ideas
threaten their religious beliefs, which constitute a key factor leading to the rejection of
scientific theories and, by implication, science itself, we adopted Stephen Jay Goulds
concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) (Gould, 1999). This concept is based
on the idea that there are different domains of human experience and that science deals
exclusively with the domain that can be empirically investigated. Science does not, by its
nature, address questions of morality, or ultimate meaning or purpose, as do religion,
ethics, and philosophy. Accordingly, we stress the strength of science throughout the
course in terms of its ability to advance knowledge of empirical matters, but we also
acknowledge its limits regarding other aspects of the human experience pertaining to
meaning, purpose, and values. We also point out that the assertion one can either be
religious or accept evolution, but not both, is an example of one of the fallacies they
have learned; namely, the False-Dichotomy fallacy. As Joshua Rosenau of the National
Center for Science Education said, Recognizing and defusing the social pressures
underlying science denial are key in convincing people that it is even worth considering
scientific ideas that seem contrary to those of their social identity (Rosenau, 2012).
Having established the distinctions between science and non-science early in the
semester, and putting forward the NOMA principle, our students are more receptive to
scientific theories because they do not feel threatened by them. We recognize that not all
scientists share this view about NOMA and might be philosophically opposed to this
approach; however, the effectiveness of our approach, which addresses the psychology of
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
belief and is respectful of the worldviews of our students, has been shown to be quite
effective based on our results involving the MATE assessment.
Our approach is also consistent with that recommended by Smith (2010a, b) in a
comprehensive review of the literature concerning philosophical and pedagogical issues
regarding the teaching of evolution. He specifically addresses the need to acknowledge
both students worldview (and how it affects their willingness to consider evolution), and
their misconceptions regarding science and evolution. Accordingly, he emphasizes the
necessity of using pedagogical approaches based on recognition of cognitive factors
affecting belief and conceptual change, as well as the need to teach the nature of science
not just the facts of science. He also argues that a NOMA-based approach is more
successful in facilitating change in attitudes regarding evolution and, we would argue,
would apply to the Big Bang theory and other scientific ideas students find
discomforting.
Use of Case Studies and Assignments
There is one additional aspect of the course design we believe has been critical in our
success; i.e., an active and cooperative learning approach built around case studies.
Smith et al. (2005) reported that, between 1924 and 1997, more than 168 studies were
conducted in an attempt to assess the relative effectiveness of various methods of
learning, namely, cooperative, competitive, and individualistic pedagogies. A metaanalyses of these studies showed that the cooperative learning approach resulted in
significant and substantial increases in learning; i.e., higher achievement, relative to
either the individualistic or competitive approaches. The measures used to gauge the
amount of learning included information learned, accuracy of knowledge, critical
thinking/reasoning, and ability to creatively solve problems. In short, research strongly
supports the conclusion that cooperative learning in its various forms is superior to
lecture alone.
This same pattern was found by Springer et al.s (1999) meta-analysis of the
effectiveness of small group interactive engagement on learning by undergraduates in
STEM courses. Results showed that students who worked in small groups performed at
higher levels, had better attitudes, and were more likely to remain STEM majors than
students in a traditional lecture class. In a similar review of the literature, Johnson,
Johnson, and Smith (2007) reported that cooperative learning (which is incorporated into
the case study approach used in the FoS course) tends to have several positive results
which included, but were not limited to, improved learning and retention of the material,
the more frequent use of critical thinking and metacognition, and improved problem
solving. Based on the results of almost a century of research comparing cooperative
learning with individual and competitive learning, the FoS course was designed to require
active engagement and critical thinking on the part of students as they work together as
members of a group to evaluate claims in lecture, in homework assignments, and in lab.
10
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
Peer Evaluation System

To ensure student engagement in group work, and a more accurate accounting of a
students participation within the group, we implemented a peer evaluation system
modeled after Larry Michaelsens Team-Based Learning approach (Parmelee et al.,
2012); the system requires students to evaluate the contribution of their team members,
for group-related tasks only, for purposes of determining each students group score.
The use of this type of system, which was highly recommended by faculty affiliated with
the Case Study program at SUNY-Buffalo, helps alleviate students concern that some
members of the group will do all the work, but everyone including slackers will get
the same grade.
Conclusion
Based on the assessments used to evaluate our course, the number of students assessed
(475 for CAT test; 1443 for the pre-MATE assessment and 1251 for the post-MATE
assessment), as well as the length of the assessment period (4-5 years), the results are
robust and demonstrate the greater efficacy of the FoS course for teaching scientific
reasoning/critical thinking and science literacy relative to traditional approaches to
teaching General-Education science courses for non-majors. The success of the FoS
course is based on the inclusion of principles of critical thinking and logical fallacies,
information pertaining to the limits of perception and memory, the nature of science, and
details regarding the scientific method. In addition, it specifically contrasts science with
pseudoscience, and uses a case study approach requiring students to use their scientific
knowledge to evaluate claims. This encourages higher order thinking and the perceived
relevance of the material. Because the course deals with ideas that could potentially
create dissonance in many students, it directly addresses this concept through
consideration of relevant psychological factors affecting belief. Finally, the use of group
work enhances learning, and the use of a peer evaluation system encourages participation
of all students when doing group work.
It is this combination of approaches, which is not part of traditional science courses, that
we believe has made the course successful in promoting the development of critical
thinking and the acceptance of discomforting scientific theories. It has helped our
students better evaluate the innumerable examples of pseudoscientific claims that
permeate our society. By adopting this approach to science education, our students have
a greater understanding and appreciation of science and why it works, and they are moreinformed and better-prepared to make decisions than are students who complete more
traditional general-education science courses.
11
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061 Benchmarks for Science Literacy: A Tool for Curriculum Reform, Washington, DC.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2010). Vision and Change: A
Call to Action, Washington, DC.
Alters, B.J., and Nelson, C.E. (2002). Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education.
Evolution 56, 1891-1901.
Benoit, W.L. Persuasion (Communication Institute for Online Scholarship).
http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/persuasion/Esocial_judgment_1theory.htm (accessed 6
February 2015).
Bernstein, D.A., Penner, L.A., Clarke-Stewart, A., and Roy, E.J. (2006). Psychology,
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Day, P.K. (2013). Animal Planet's mermaid hoax special draws record ratings. Los
Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/30/entertainment/la-et-st-animalplanet-mermaid-hoax-special-record-ratings-20130530 (accessed 6 February 2015).
Erwin, P. (2014). Attitudes and Persuasion, New York: Psychology Press.
Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, New
York: Ballantine.
Impey, C., Buxner, S., and Antonellis, J. (2012). Non-scientific beliefs among
undergraduate students. Astron Educ Rev 11, 1-12.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in
postsecondary and professional settings. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 15-29.
Johnson, M., and Pigliucci, M. (2004). Is KNOWLEDGE of SCIENCE Associated with
Higher Skepticism of Pseudoscientific Claims? Am Biol Teach 66, 536-548.
Lawson, A.E., and Weser, J. (1990). The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about life:
effects of instruction and reasoning skills. J Res Sci Teach 27, 589-606.
Lett, J. (1990). A field guide to critical thinking. Skeptical Inquirer 14, 153-160.
Martin, M. (1994). Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education. Sci & Educ 3,
357-371.
Miller, J.D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Underst Sci 7,
203-223.
12
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
National Science Foundation. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014,

Arlingtong, VA: National Science Board.
Parmelee, D., Michaelsen, L.K., Cook, S., and Hudes, P.D. (2012). Team-based learning:
A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 65. Med Teach 34, E275-E287.
Rosenau, J. (2012). Science denial: a guide for scientists. Trends Microbiol 20, 567-569.
Rowe, M.P. (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 27 June 2015).
Rutherford, F.J., and Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S.D., Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. (2005). Pedagogies of
engagement: Classroom-based practices. J Eng Educ 94, 87-101.
Smith, M.U. (2010a). Current Status of Research in Teaching and Learning Evolution: I.
Philosophical/Epistemological Issues. Sci & Educ 19, 523-538.
Smith, M.U. (2010b). Current Status of Research in Teaching and Learning Evolution: II.
Pedagogical Issues. Sci & Educ 19, 539-571.
Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., and Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on
undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.
Rev Educ Res 69, 21-51.
13
580
581
582
583
2. Example Course Syllabus

Foundations of Science
584
585
586
14
Foundations of Science
587
588
589
590
591

Course Number and Title: BIOL 1436-04: Foundations of Science (4 credits)
592
Class Time: Tuesday and Thursday (9:30-10:50)
593
Class Meeting Room: Lee Drain Building (LDB) 207
594
Name: Dr. Marcus Gillespie: Office Number: LDB 200 (Deans Office area)
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
BIOL 1436-04; CRN: 23793

Spring Semester 2015
Office Hours: MWF 9:00-11:00 in LDB 200 (Deans

Office)
Phone: 294-1945
E-mail: marcusg@shsu.edu
* I always try to have an open-door policy as
regards office hours, so please feel free to call
or come by any time that you have a question.

Catalog Description: The course focuses on the nature of science as a reliable method of
acquiring knowledge about the natural world. Students will learn how to apply key
scientific facts, concepts, laws and theories to distinguish science from non-science, bad
science, and psedudoscience by analyzing a variety of claims and case studies. By
employing an innovative, interdisciplinary approach to science education, this course is
designed to increase science literacy and critical thinking skills for introductory-level
students who are not science majors. Students MUST enroll concurrently in the
corresponding lab for this course. Credit: 4

Course Description/Rationale: The rationale for this course is to enhance your scientific
literacy by making science both interesting and relevant. This will be accomplished by
helping you understand how science works and how you can apply science in your daily life,
especially when evaluating extraordinary/unusual claims in which almost everyone is
interested including UFOs, ESP, and mysterious creatures like Big Foot.

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

1) to enhance your understanding and appreciation of science as a proven and reliable
method of comprehending the natural world, and to help you distinguish scientific
from non-scientific and pseudoscientific ways of thinking about the world;

2) to provide you with a more well-rounded understanding of science by teaching you
the basic principles, facts, laws, and theories from the natural sciences and, when
relevant, from psychology;

15
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
3) to teach you specific rules of critical thinking so that you can use them, and your
knowledge of science and the scientific method, to make more informed decisions.
All three goals are inseparable and are interwoven throughout the course.

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

1. Understand and apply scientific terminology pertaining to the nature and conduct of
science, such as hypothesis, law, theory, control group, placebo group, confirmation
bias, and double-blind study;

2. Apply methods of reasoning used by scientists: i.e., the scientific method based on the
requirements of falsifiability/testability, logical consistency, comprehensiveness of
evidence, intellectual honesty (objectivity), replication of results, and sufficiency of
evidence;

3. Analyze and evaluate common logical fallacies and perceptual biases that interfere with
the ability to draw reasonable and/or correct conclusions, as well as the difference
between facts, informed opinions, and uninformed opinions;

4. Learn key concepts and theories from a variety of scientific disciplines, especially
physics, biology, and geology;

5. Demonstrate how to distinguish science from pseudoscience by scientifically evaluating
a wide variety of extraordinary claims that are common in our culture today.

Just as importantly, upon completion of this course, we hope that you will have a greater
appreciation of the role of science in all of our lives and the need for scientific literacy and
critical thinking to help make informed decisions about issues currently facing our society.

Methods of Instruction: This course is based on a combination of traditional lecture
format, coupled with the use of case studies which involve classroom-based group work,
class discussions, homework assignments, and readings. The use of case studies (which are
stories with an educational purpose) has been shown to: significantly increase student
interest, enjoyment, and involvement with a course; improve grades; and enhance students
critical thinking ability.

16
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
Students are required to take the lab concurrently because the lecture
and lab constitute a single course. The lab is also based on the use of case studies.

Course Materials: There are two textbooks for the course and a lab manual. The first book
listed below (Foundations of Science) is an integrated science text that provides the
scientific knowledge for the course. The second text (How to Think about Weird Things)
provides an understanding of how to use both critical thinking and scientific reasoning to
evaluate extraordinary/weird claims.

1) Foundations of Science - Custom (This is a custom edition of Conceptual

Integrated Science), by Hewitt, Lyons, Suchocki, and Yeh, 2012,
Pearson/Addison-Wesley, San Francisco. ISBN 97812696855350
2) How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age
7e, 2013, by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn, McGraw-Hill. ISBN
9780078038365 (paperback).
3) Lab manual: Foundations of Science Lab Manual ISBN
9780738068237

Scantrons: You will need approximately 5 of the "long" Scantron test forms (the 100-
question version; 50 on front and 50 on back [form #882-E]) and 10 of the "short" Scantron
test forms (15 question "Quizzstrip"; form #815-E); you might also need a calculator for lab.

Supplementary Readings: If used, these will be distributed either in class or placed on
BlackBoard.

Grading Criteria

Because the lecture and lab portions of the course are considered to be part of the
same course, the final course grade is based on a combination of lecture tests, lecture
coursework, and lab work. In other words, there is no separate lab grade.
Specifically, the lecture tests constitute 48% of the grade, the lecture assignments
constitute 24.6%, attendance constitutes 3%, and the lab assignments constitute
24.4%. Because of this, students must remain enrolled in both the lecture and lab for
the entire semester; they cannot drop either the lecture or the lab and receive a
grade for the course. The 4 in the 1436 designation for the course indicates that this
is a 4-credit course that has a lab component.

Grading will be based on 3 lecture exams (including the final), eight (8) sets of reading
questions, 3 group case study activities, 3 group homework assignments, individual and
group lab quiz grades, peer evaluations by your fellow group members in both lecture and
lab (see details below), a syllabus quiz, and attendance. You will also be given a critical
thinking assessment at the beginning and end of the semester that serves as extra
credit. This extra credit can be very important to your overall grade, so PLEASE do your
best on both exams!

17
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
Please note that the number of assignments may be changed slightly (e.g., add or drop a
homework assignment) if circumstances warrant such a change. If this happens, it will have a
slight effect on the percentage points associated with each aspect of the course.

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

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

Reading Quizzes: Each week, you will be assigned readings from the books listed above
and, in some cases, from PowerPoint lectures that are posted on BlackBoard but which
are not discussed in class. To ensure that students read these assignments, a set of
reading questions will normally be given every two weeks over the reading
material. These assignments will be completed outside of class online, in
BlackBoard. You are asked to use both your books and notes to complete the
assignments. Once available, you may re-take the reading quiz assignment as many
times as you wish before the due date for the reading assignment. If you experience
computer problems, please contact the online helpdesk (936-294-2780) before the
assignment is due. The reading quizzes will be available for a week, or more, before
they are due. They can be retaken as many times as you want before the due date
and it is the highest score that is accepted. The quizzes are randomly created from a
pool of questions. The pool typically consists of 60 to 90 questions. Because the
computer randomly selects questions from the question pool when it generates a quiz,
each version of the quiz will be different and may consist of some questions that are
repeated, as well as new questions. The more times you take it, the more questions you
will see before the test. We suggest you complete the reading quizzes early in case you
have questions or computer problems. Because the reading quizzes are available for an
extended period of time and can be re-taken before the due date, late reading quizzes
will not be accepted. Again, we do not recommend waiting to the last available day to
complete the reading quizzes, as you may experience computer and/or technical issues.
By attempting the quizzes earlier in the week, you will ensure you earn a higher grade
and submit the assignment on time.

As regards the reading assignments, I strongly recommend that you thoroughly read
the material dont just skim it. If you try to avoid actually reading the material
and, instead, merely skim the chapter until you find something that looks right,
you will not learn the material. This technique really doesnt work because, as
emphasized throughout the course, facts presented in isolation from one another
dont make sense. You have to see the connections among the facts in order to
make sense of them and to remember them! This is why reading all of the
material for comprehension does work!

Pacing your work is the key to not being overwhelmed.
18
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
Once the quizzes have been submitted, the answers will be posted on BB. A
screen will show you which questions you earned credit on and which you missed.
In many cases, explanations are provided for the answers as well. Many students
print off their completion reports for study guides. Please remember that this course is
about understanding and reasoning not memorization. So, you should always look
over the completion reports to ensure that you understand the concepts. In other
words, the quizzes and completion reports serve as a study

guide for the readings.

There are a total of 570 points possible for these quizzes, including 20 points for the
syllabus quiz. Together, these are worth 12.2% of the course grade.
Case Studies and Peer Evaluation
In this class, students will be divided into groups by the instructor. Each group will
consist of about 5 students who will work together throughout the semester on both
case studies and the three group homework assignments that will be completed outside
of class. As you will see, group scores are usually better than individual scores, and
so this process normally improves an individuals grade. In addition, group effort
helps everyone learn the material better because everyone is involved in teaching
one another. So, individuals normally do better on tests as a result of this prior group
preparation process assuming they put in the effort. Group work in lecture constitutes
12.4% of the total course grade. Groups also will be formed in lab, and group work in
lab constitutes 9.6% of the total course grade. So, in total, group scores comprise
22% of ones grade in the course.

Many students are initially uneasy about the idea of working in groups because it
is often the case that, in previous classes, some members of their group did all or most
of the work, while others did little or nothing but everyone received an equivalent
grade. This should not be a problem in this course because of the importance of group
peer evaluation procedures to a students grade. The procedures for performing peer
evaluations are described below.

Peer Evaluation Process

If you are in a group consisting of 5 members (including yourself), you will be allotted
40 points to distribute among the members of your group following each group
assignment. You do not give points to yourself. (If you are in a group of 6 members, you
will be given 50 points, etc) If you believe that everyone contributed equally to the
group work, then you would pay/give everyone 10 on the assignment. If everyone in
the group feels the same way, then everyone receives a total of 40 points from their
peers, which results in an average score of 10 (40/4 = 10). Please note that 10 is the
maximum number of points that may be awarded.

You must be fair in your assessments, but if someone in your group did not contribute
adequately, then you should give them fewer points. If they were not present or did
not contribute to an assignment, they should receive no points.

19
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
It is imperative that you assign these scores PRIVATELY (NOT in front of your team
members) AND that you do this on the day the case study was conducted or the
assignment turned in! It is also critically important that you do not agree to give
each other good scores. This is guaranteed to undermine the integrity of the
process and will inevitably result in bad feelings if someone in the group doesnt
do his or her fair share of the work because he or she thinks theyre going to get a
good score no matter what they do.

Also, in order to be fair and accurate, DO NOT wait until the midterm or the end of the
semester to assign these participation scores (for reasons that will be apparent when
we discuss the limits of peoples' memories); rather, assign the scores immediately
after the assignment is completed.

At the end of the semester, your peer evaluation score is equal to the average of
the amount of peer evaluation points you received from the members of your
group - converted to a percent. Accordingly, an average of 10 points equals 100%;
an average of 90 equals 90%, and so on. This score is then used to determine the
number of group points that you will receive at the end of the semester. If you
receive an average of 10, you will receive 100% of the points earned by your group on
the group assignments. If you receive an average of 9.2, then you will receive 92% of
the group points, and so on.

If you have an average of less than 7, you will not receive ANY of the group points.

Use the following additional criteria when assigning points:

1) Be fair! If a person made a genuine effort to contribute, then award 10. Do not give
points to a student for an assignment if that student was absent the day a group
assignment was done in class. And, do not give any points on a group homework
assignment if the person did not contribute.

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

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

4) As stated above, anyone receiving an average of less than 7.0 on his or her peer
evaluation at the end of the semester will automatically lose his or her group-
based points. So, for example, if a student receives an average of less than 7.0 in
lecture, the student will lose all of the group-based points earned by the group in
lecture. This amounts to a maximum 580 points out of 4690 possible in the course
and constitutes 12.4% of the total course grade; i.e., just over one letter grade. In
the same way, if a student receives an average of less than 7.0 on his or her peer
evaluation in lab, the student will lose all of the group-based points in lab, which is a
20
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
maximum of 450 points. This equals 9.6% of the total course grade. And, if a
student received less than 7.0 in both lecture and lab, they would lose up to 22% of
the total course points; i.e., more than 2 letter grades. The point is, Do your best to
contribute to the groupJ !

It is the last rule that normally ensures everyone will contribute to the groups
efforts. Also, the fact that the score is an average prevents anyone who might be unfair in
the awarding of points from single-handedly undermining the final grade of a group
member. And, if one student gives a score that is much less than those of other students
(which implies that it is unfair), I have the option of ignoring that score. In fact, I can
override a low average score if there is evidence that the grade was unfairly assigned by the
group. This serves as a safety net for each student.

This type of peer-evaluation method has been used in many universities and works very
well. Students like it because it encourages everyone to pull their own weight and
contribute to the group.

Example: Imagine that a student named Linda received peer evaluation amounts in lecture
of 8, 10, 9, 10, and 10, for a total of 47, which is an average of 9.4, or 94%. John received all
10s and so received all of the group points. Billy, who skipped class, didnt sit with his
group, and contributed very little to the group, received scores of 2, 0, 3, 0, and 2 for a total
of 7 points and an average of 1.4, or 14%. So, Linda received 94% of the groups overall
grade for the semester. With an average of 14%, poor Billy lost 580 points, which means his
overall course grade dropped by 1.2 letter grades. And, because his average was 71%
before the deduction, Billy failed the course (71% - 12.2% = 58.8%). This is not the happy
ending any of us wants to see!
How to Earn a Good Peer Evaluation Score

1) Sit with your group every day and learn everyones names. Get to know them.

2) Come prepared to contribute to the case studies and quizzes by attending all classes (so
you know whats going on), and reading the assigned material. In other words, make
sure you can and do contribute constructively to the discussions.

3) Be positive and friendly and treat the other members of the group the way you want to
be treated. In other words, be courteous and respectful of others comments and ideas -
even if you dont agree with them. Be willing to accept that your initial thoughts might
be incorrect, but also dont be afraid to courteously express your views even if they are
different from those of others in the group.

4) Contribute significantly to the group homework assignments. Do your part and do it on
time not at the last minute. * You should keep a copy of what you have written in case
there is a dispute regarding your contribution. Remember, I can override the groups
evaluation in the unlikely event that it was unfair. However, this normally requires
that you be able to document what you contributed so that I can base my decision
on evidence rather than hearsay.

21
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
5) Come to any and all group meetings and, if you absolutely cannot be at a meeting because
of work or other legitimate schedule conflicts, make sure you keep in touch with the
group via e-mail, Facebook, or phone and let them know ahead of time that you cant
come. Most people will understand if they know someone has legitimate reasons for not
attending a meeting. But, you need to contribute ideas, written material, etc., even if you
cant join the group in person.

An initial, trial peer evaluation will be done approximately half way through the
semester. This evaluation will NOT count as part of the grade and will serve only to give
each person feedback from the members of his or her group so that he or she can correct
any problems that might exist.

Very important note: Although points are not given for completing peer evaluations,
points will be deducted if the rules described above were not followed and/or if you
do not submit a peer evaluation for your group members. Specifically, 40 points will
be deducted for not submitting a peer evaluation when it is requested. So, please do
the evaluation!

Homework Assignments

There will be three group homework assignments worth a total of 400 points (8.5% of
course grade). These assignments entail analyses of actual arguments and claims. For
example, the first assignment involves evaluating a series of arguments. The second
assignment entails an analysis of a product that is available to help maintain your health.
The question your group will try to answer is, Does it work? Is it based on science or
pseudoscience? Doing these assignments will help you evaluate the innumerable claims
you will encounter in your life.

The third assignment is known as FiLCHeRS and is worth 220 points. This assignment
involves the application of the FiLCHeRS rules (which are discussed in class) to an analysis
of an extraordinary claim you will be assigned to evaluate. The assignment consists of both
multiple choice and short answer questions and is a capstone assignment in that it entails
using information learned throughout the course to evaluate the claim.
Attendance and Make-up Policies

This course abides by University Policy and Regulations concerning attendance (See the
Undergraduate Catalog). Accordingly, regular and punctual attendance" is expected of
each student at Sam Houston State University:

In a course such as this, in which group effort is a significant part of the grade, students
genuinely need to come to class so that they can contribute to their groups success. Those
who are prepared and contribute positively will be highly valued by their group! This
course also moves quickly and many ideas build on one another and are used throughout
the course. So, if a student misses class, he or she will almost certainly be hurt academically.
In short, attendance matters and is required.

Because attendance is so important, I give each student 150 points at the beginning of the
semester. Although this is part of the total points possible for the course, it is non-academic
(i.e., not dependent on tests and assignments) and so serves as a grade cushion. All you
22
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
have to do to keep these points is to come to class. How much easier can it get! However,
because attendance is so important, students will lose 30 points for each unexcused
absence after the first absence. (In order for an absence to be excused, some form of
documentation must be provided to show that it was legitimate; this can include a
physician's note, a funeral announcement, legal notice, etc. The documentation must be
provided within one week of returning to class.) Also, tardies can be counted as absences.
So, if a student misses 6 times, is tardy 6 times, or has some combination thereof (e.g., three
unexcused absences and three tardies), he or she will lose their 150 points, which equals
3.1% of his or her total grade.

If someone misses more than 6 times, that student automatically FAILS THE COURSE
So, please come to class!
Examples

0-1 absence/tardies no point deduction

2 absences/tardies 30 points




6 absences/tardies 150 points (3.1%)

> 6 absences/tardies = F

Please understand that these policies are intended to prevent students from
failing the class because of skipping so many classes that they cant learn the
material. In effect, these attendance rules keep most students on track and
reduces the number of students that might otherwise fail the course.

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

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

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

3. Late Work Policy: The three group homework assignments are to be turned in
at the beginning of class (on the day they are due). These assignments can be
handed in a maximum of one class period after the due date; however, points
will be deducted depending upon how late it is submitted. If, for example, the
homework assignment is due on Tuesday at 9:30 AM, but is handed in on
Tuesday at 1 PM, 5% will be deducted. If the paper is turned in on Wednesday,
10% of the value of the assignment will be subtracted. And if it is submitted at
23
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
the beginning of the class on the Thursday immediately following the Tuesday
due date/time, 20% will be deducted. It must be emphasized that, after that
date, the assignment cannot be turned in and no grade will be received for the
assignment.

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

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

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

Lab Grades

The lab grade will consist of both individual scores and group-derived scores. Most of
the labs will be based on case studies that will involve instructor-led discussions in which
members of groups work together to develop responses, propose hypotheses and
experimental designs, or offer explanations for what has been reported or observed. In
short, labs involve a lot of discussion both within each group and among groups. The lab
instructor will facilitate these discussions. The discussions make the labs fun and
interesting because they are not based simply on rote memorization and fill-in-the-blank
activities; rather, they involve group discussion and exploration of topics.

At the beginning of the lab, each student will be given a short, Individual Lab
Quiz (ILQ) over the information provided in the lab readings and relevant readings
assigned in lecture. This is intended to ensure that everyone reads the lab exercise
and textbook background readings (listed on the lecture syllabus) before coming
to class so they will be prepared for the lab discussion. The quiz will include some
vocabulary terms listed at the end of the lab exercise and related lecture notes and
readings. Questions will be multiple-choice and/or short answer essay.

At the end of the lab, each group will be given a Group Lab Quiz (GLQ) regarding
the information covered in lab. The group will work together as a team to complete
it. Groups will be created by the lab instructor at the beginning of the year. The
purpose for the group work is to enhance understanding of the material by having
24
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
group members help teach each other the material and reinforce the key concepts
covered in the lab. The group scores obtained over the semester will be adjusted by
the peer evaluation score the student receives from his/her peers using the
procedures outlined on the peer evaluation form.

A total of 10 lab case studies will be completed and students will be allowed to
drop both their lowest individual and their lowest group lab grade.
Accordingly, the lab quizzes, both individual and group, total 1140 points. These
points will account for approximately 24.4% of your overall course grade.

In summary, students can earn 690 individual points and 450 group points. Please
remember that, in this course, the lecture and lab grades are combined to
determine your overall course grade. Thus, there is a total of 1140 lab points
possible in lab.

In total, the lab portion of the course grade constitutes 24.4% of your grade which is
almost identical to the amount that would be earned relative to a standard lecture + lab
class. In other words, if you took a science class in which the lecture and lab were separate,
and earned 4 hours of credit for this combination, the lab would constitute 1 of 4 total
hours, or 25% of the grade component for the science class. However, please remember
that, in this course, the lecture and lab grades are combined to determine your overall
course grade.
Extra Credit

At both the beginning and end of the semester, you will be given the opportunity to
earn extra credit worth up to 9% of the total course grade! Thats 422 points! This
opportunity to significantly improve your grade will be in the form of a critical thinking
assessment either the CAT assessment or the FSE assessment. This assessment, which
will be given in lab, is required by the Universitys reaccreditation requirements. It is
extremely important that you do your best on both exams because your scores reflect upon
the university and indicates how well our students are doing relative to students at other
universities in the United States. Its your chance to not only earn a lot of bonus points, but
also to make SHSU look good! So, please do your best.

Each assessment is worth 120 points. The grading procedure for this assessment consists
of simply adding the two scores together. However, if the sum of the two scores is above
144 points, a multiplier is used to further increase the number of points you can earn. (Its a
bit like the multiplier used on some lotteries.) This means that the procedure for awarding
bonus points is very generous.

For example, if you made a combined score of 110 points on the assessments, the 110
points will be added to your grade. And, if your total on both assessments is greater
than 144 points, you will receive even more extra credit points! The amount you
would receive for scoring above 144 points is equal to the number of points you earn above
144, multiplied by 2 with a maximum of 190 extra points possible. (190 points is
equal to 4% of the course grade.) So, if you received the maximum number points on
these exams, you would receive a grand total of 430 bonus points (9% of the course
25
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
grade), which is almost an entire letter grade! This is why its important to do your best
on both assessments.

For example, if you made a 70 the first time you took the assessment and a 95 the second
time, you would have earned a total of 165 points. Because the combined score for the two
assessments is 21 points more than 144 points, the multiplier is used and you would earn
42 more bonus points in addition to the 165 youd already earned: 165 - 144 = 21; 21 x 2 =
42; 165 + 42 = 207 total bonus points). *Because these are bonus points, they would NOT
be adjusted by a peer score. Theyre all yours!

Because you are being asked to take this critical thinking assessment at the beginning of the
semester (the pre-test) before you have been taught the course material, we do not want
you to be discouraged if you do not do as well as you might have expected on the pre-test.
That is why we give additional bonus points if you achieve a combined score above 144
which is a mere 60% of the possible points on the assessments! Because the score on the
second assessment (the post-test) SHOULD improve if you learn from the course and
you do your best on the assessment, you can easily make a good overall score and earn a
significant number of bonus points. You should know that a few students have actually
earned the maximum number of bonus points possible!

Please note that these assessments are the only possible sources of extra credit in the
course. In other words, no individual extra credit is given and, with the exception of one
individual and one group lab grade, no other grades are dropped.

Grade Determination

Your grade is based on the percentage of points earned relative to the

maximum number possible for the course (4,690). The percentage of the total
possible points determined by individual effort is 78% (3658 out of 4690 possible),
and that determined by group effort is 22% (1143 out of 4690 possible). So,
although group effort is fundamentally important to the design of the course and to
the way in which labs and case studies are run, your grade is determined
primarily by your individual scores; i.e., by your individual effort. In short, you
are ultimately responsible for the majority of the grade points you earn in the
course. The group work should help you do better by helping you learn the
material more thoroughly.

Please note that The State of Texas REQUIRES that universities have students engage
in group activities because it is crucial to their career preparation. This is an
additional reason why group work is required and why you will evaluate one
anothers contributions to the group.

All of the tests and assignments for the course, including lab assignments, are listed in the
Grade Form on page 13. To keep track of your grades, you need to record each and
every grade you receive on this form. (Please note that Black Board will not calculate
your grade; its simply a place to store the grades for individual assignments.)

Using the form below, you can estimate your grade at any point in the semester by
comparing the total number of points you have earned to-date to the total number of points
26
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
possible at that point in the course. You can only estimate the grade because, prior to the
end of the semester, your score on group work will not be adjusted based on your peer
evaluations. However, you should have a very good sense of how you are doing based on
the original, unadjusted group scores coupled with your awareness of your
participation in the group.
Abbreviations used in grade form

Lecture component

Lab Component
CS = Case Study

ILQ = Individual Lab
Quiz
RQ = Reading Quiz

GLQ = Group Lab Quiz
SQ = Syllabus Quiz

HW = Homework

CT = Critical Thinking Test
27
1180
Grade Record Form
1181 I. Lecture Grades (75.7% of total) II. Lab Scores (24.4% of total)
1182

1183
Individual grades
1. Individual Lab Scores (14.8%)
1184
1. Test grades (48%)
ILQ 1 _____ (74)
1185
Test 1 ______ (750)
ILQ 2 _____ (77)
1186
Test 2 ______ (750)
ILQ 3 _____ (77)
1187
Test 3 ______ (750)
ILQ 4 _____ (77)
1188
A. Total test = _______
ILQ 5 _____ (77)
1189

ILQ 6 _____ (77)
1190
2. Reading Quizzes (12.2%)
ILQ 7 _____ (77)
1191
SQ 1 ______ (20)
ILQ 8 _____ (77)
1192
RQ 1 ______ (60)
ILQ 9 _____ (77)
1193
RQ 2 ______ (40)
ILQ 10 ____ (77)
1194
RQ 3 ______ (60)
1195
RQ 4 ______ (60) F.Total Individual ____ (Drop lowest ILQ)
1196
RQ 5 ______ (60)

1197
RQ 6 ______ (40)

1198
EnvHW_____(50)
1199
RQ 7 ______ (60)
1200
RQ 8 ______ (60)
2. Group lab Scores (9.6%)
1201
RQ 9 ______ (60)
GLQ 1 _____ (50)
1202
B. Total Quiz = ______
GLQ 2 _____ (50)
1203

GLQ 3 _____ (50)
1204
3. Group Grades in Lecture (12.4%)
GLQ 4 _____ (50)
1205
NASA CS _____ (60)
GLQ 5 _____ (50)
1206
Xango CS _____ (60)
GLQ 6 _____ (50)
1207
Argument HW_____ (90)
GLQ 7 _____ (50)
1208
Water HW _____ (90)
GLQ 8 _____ (50)
1209
Vacc/Autism CS _____ (60)
GLQ 9 _____ (50)
1210
FiLCHeRS HW _____ (220)
GLQ 10 ____ (50)
1211

1212
Total group lecture = _______
Total group ______ (Drop lowest GLQ)
1213

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

1216
4. Attendance (150 pts.) (3.1%)
1217

-30 for each unexcused absence or tardy - after the first absence or tardy
1218
D. Total Attendance ____ (150 max. if no absences)
1219

1220
5. Extra Credit: Critical Thinking Assessment Scores (worth up to 9%)

1221 CT pre-test _____ (120 max)

1222 CT post-test ____ (120 max)

1223
E. Total CT points _____
1224

28
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
To obtain your final grade (percent), add the totals labeled A, B, C,

D, E, F and G, divide by 4690, and multiply by 100.

Point range for final course grade

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

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

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

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

1) Students will refrain from behavior in the classroom that intentionally or
unintentionally disrupts the learning process and, thus, impedes the mission of the
university. Cellular telephones, pagers and ALL other electronic communication
devices must be turned off before class begins.

Students are prohibited from eating or drinking in class, using tobacco products,
making offensive remarks, reading newspapers, sleeping, talking at inappropriate
times, wearing inappropriate clothing, or engaging in any other form of distraction.
Inappropriate behavior in the classroom will result in a directive to leave class.
Students who are especially disruptive also may be reported to the Dean of Students
for disciplinary action in accordance with university policy.

2) Please do not use cell phones or I-pods in class at any time, unless instructed to
do so, because it distracts not only you, but the instructor and other students. If
you use a laptop computer or I-Pad, please use it only to access the lectures.

If you have an emergency-type situation that requires that you be in cell
phone contact with someone (e.g., relative in hospital; spouse overseas in the
military), then please tell me before class begins and put the phone in the
vibrate mode.

3) Please come to class on timethere is no reason to be late to class on a frequent
basis.

4) Please remain in class until it is finished because leaving early disrupts the
class and will count as an absence unless you have cleared it with me, or
29
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
unless it is an emergency. If you have a job that overlaps with class time, then you
need to drop the course or change your work schedule.

5) Please remove hats during exams.

6) For obvious reasons, students CANNOT LEAVE THE ROOM DURNING AN
EXAM and then return. If this happens, the test will be taken up and your grade
will be based on the portion of the test that you completed. If you have a cold or
allergy, please bring tissues to class so that you wont want to leave to get
tissues during the test.

Study Tips: Please read and follow these tips to enhance your grade in the course. I want
you to do well!

1. This course deals with arguments and evidence for or against certain claims. So,
in order to study, you should imagine that you have been asked to write an essay
in which you must present evidence and arguments to either support or refute a
claim. This helps you learn and retain the material and it makes the learning
process more fun and interesting. This approach amounts to pretending that you
are teaching the material to someone else. You cannot simply memorize your notes
and definitions and expect to do well on the tests. You must truly understand the
material in order to obtain a good grade.

2. Take notes. Although significant amount of the information covered in class is presented
in abbreviated form on the Power Point lectures, you will almost certainly need to write
additional notes in order to recall, integrate, and understand the information. In
addition, note taking requires active listening; i.e., a conscious attempt to determine what
is important and to look for connections between ideas. Lectures arent simply a bunch
of facts and definitions thrown together. In the class, the lectures are arguments
either for or against certain claims and youll need to understand the arguments.

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

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

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

a. As you review your notes, first concentrate on absorbing the key ideas and
understanding the organization of the material - why certain ideas followed others in
the class and how they are related.

30
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
b. Once this is done, begin to focus on the details - the whys. As stated above, tests in
this course are absolutely not based on the mere memorization of definitions, or
on the recognition of verbatim statements from lecture; rather, the test questions
assume you already know the definitions and that you understand the concepts
discussed in lecture. So, you will not be asked definitions; rather you will be
asked to apply facts and principles, i.e., to think with the information you have
learned. Of course, you have to know the definitions to begin the process of
answering questions; so, by all means, learn the definitions as the first step in learning
the materialJ

Visitors in the Classroom: Unannounced visitors to the classroom must present a current,
official SHSU identification card to be permitted in the classroom. They must not present a
disruption to the class by their attendance. If the visitor is not a registered student, it is at
the instructor's discretion whether or not the visitor will be allowed to remain in the
classroom. This policy is not intended to discourage occasional visiting of classes by
responsible persons.

Americans with Disabilities Act: Any student seeking accommodations should go to the
Counseling Center and Services for Students with Disabilities at the very beginning of the
semester and complete a form that will grant permission to receive special
accommodations. Please do not wait until test day to do this the request for
accommodations must be done at the beginning of the semester and students that
have permission to use the services at the Counseling Center must make
appointments several days ahead of scheduled tests. Walk-ins arent permitted. Also,
please be sure to send me an e-mail two days before an exam to remind me to take the test
to the Counseling Center.

Religious Holy Days: If a student desires to be excused from class, assignment, or a test on
a religious holy day, then the student must notify the instructor of each scheduled class that
he/she will be absent for religious reasons. In such cases, the student will be required to
take the test or submit the assignment earlyunless there are good reasons for not being
able to do so and the instructor has agreed to those reasons.

Special Circumstances: If unusual circumstances arise during the semester, such as a
medical problem, death in the family, etc., which adversely affects your attendance PLEASE
discuss this with me immediately and provide documentation. Dont wait until the
end of the semester to discuss the problem with me. If you keep me informed, I will
gladly do my best to accommodate your situation. However, please understand that,
because of the nature of the course, there are limits as to how much can be excused and so,
at some point, it may be necessary for you to drop the course. Also, if you wait until after-
the-fact, at the end of the semester, to let me know that you were experiencing these
adverse circumstances, there is nothing I can do about it at that time. I cannot retroactively
make accommodations and I do not give extra credit assignments to make up for grade
deficiencies.

SCHEDULE: *This schedule is subject to change at any time based on class progress.
Major lecture topics are listed in bold-face, black font.
Reading assignments are in green font and include
31
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
all material covered since the preceding quiz

Case studies are in blue font.
Tests are in orange font.
Reading Quizzes are in red font.
Homework assignments are in purple font.

Please note that some of the readings include only sections of a chapter
(indicated by the word part), whereas others include the entire chapter,
indicated by the word all. Please dont wait until the last minute to do the
readings!

FOS = Foundations of Science (custom edition of the Conceptual Integrated
Science textbook by Hewitt et al.
Schick = How to Think about Weird Things by Schick and Vaughn

Lectures
Labs

1st
1/15 Introduction to course: Weird Things People Believe and
No
lab

Witch Trials of the Past and Present: Why Evidence

and Reason Matter

Read FOS - Chapter 1 all: About Science pp. 1-14

Read Schick Chapter 1 all: Close Encounters
With the Strange pp. 1-13
---------------
2nd 1/20 Complete Witch Trials and begin Nature of Science
No lab

Read Schick Chapter 6: Science and Its Pretenders

part 158-181 (nature of science & scientific reasoning)

Read Schick Chapter 3: Arguments Good, Bad

and Weird parts 33-39 and 49-57. (Pay particular

attention to pages 49-55 dealing with informal

fallacies. You will reference these throughout the course)

1/22 Continue Nature of Science lecture

Collect student information for creating groups

Syllabus Quiz due

Reading Quiz 1 due

---------------
3rd
1/27 NASA Activity

Labs Begin &
Read Schick Chapter 4:

Extra Credit -
Pre
32
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
Knowledge, Belief and Evidence parts 62-84 and

summary on page 90 (opinion vs. knowledge and expertise)
Argument Homework assigned: due 2/19

1/29 Nature of Science lecture

Why Things Arent Always What They Seem to Be
Reading Quiz 2 due
---------------
4th
2/3 Begin lecture on the Limits to Perception and Memory Checks Lab

Read Schick Chapter 5: Looking for Truth in

Personal Experience part 96-143 (perception and memory
problems)

2/5 Continue Limits to Perception and Memory

Reading Quiz 3 due
---------------
5th 2/10 Xango Case Study

Salem Lab
Read FOS Chapter 2 all: The Universe pp. 15-34

2/12 Continue Limits to Perception and Memory

Read FOS Chapter 3: The Atom35-56

Read FOS Chapter 4 Energy and Momentum 57-76
---------------

6th 2/17 Begin Astronomy 1 Lecture:

Perception lab
What are those Lights in the Sky? Stars, Planets, Galaxies and
The Size of the Universe
Read Schick Chapter 7: "Case Studies in the
Extraordinary part 234-248 (UFO abductions)

2/19 Continue Astronomy 1 lecture

Argument Homework due
---------------
7th 2/24 Test 1 (NOS & LPM)

Astrology Lab
Read Schick Chapter 4: "Knowledge, Belief and

Evidence part 84-90 (astrology section)
Read FOS Chapter 5 Heat 77-98

2/26 Continue Astronomy 1 lecture
Reading Quiz 4 due

Read the Laws and Relativity lecture posted on BB.
This information is critical to doing the Star
Trek lab especially the section on relativity.
---------------
8th 3/3 Begin Astronomy 2 Lecture: The Big Bang and
Star Trek Lab

33
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
the Nature of the Universe or is it a Multiverse?

Read FOS Chapter 6: "Describing Motion" 99-116
Read FOS Chapter 7: "Newtons Laws of Motion"
117-138
3/5

Complete Astronomy 2 lecture

Ghost Busting with Newtons Laws
Read Power Point lecture on Black Board titled The
Paranormal Part 1: History of Ghosts, Psychic
Energy, Psychic Powers, Psychic Detectives,
Psychic
Healers and Mediums.
****Mid-term peer evaluation due****

---------------
3/10
Spring Break
3/12
Spring Break
---------------
9th
3/17 Begin Paranormal Phenomena Part 2 lecture
Haunting Lab
AAW Water Homework assigned;
Part 1 (individual component) due 4/7
Part 2 (group component) due 4/14
Read Schick Chapter 2 all: The Possibility of the
Impossible pp. 14-29 (the possibility of ESP and
precognition)
part 197-213 (parapsychology)
Read Schick Chapter 7: Case Studies in the
Extraordinary parts 220-227 and 248-276
(talking to the dead, near-death experiences, and
ghosts)

3/19 Continue Paranormal Phenomena Part 2 lecture

Reading Quiz 5 due
--------------
10th 3/24 Begin CAM 1 lecture on Complimentary, Alternative, CAM Lab

and Quack Medicines and Diets: take two ginkgo tablets

and some homeopathic elixir and you'll be fine!

Read Schick Chapter 7 (homeopathy) part 227-231

Read Schick Chapter 7 (climate change) part 283-288

10th 3/26 Test 2 (Astronomy, Laws, and Paranormal)

Read Schick Chapter 5 Looking for Truth in

Personal Experience part 141-150 (anecdotal

evidence, placebo effects and controlled studies)
---------------
11th 3/31 Continue CAM 1 lecture

Geology lab
Read FOS Chapter 8: "Human Biology Care and
Maintenance" 139-160

34
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
4/2

Begin CAM 2 lecture
Reading Quiz 6 due

Read FOS Chapter 9: Rocks and Minerals parts 161-184
---------------
12th 4/7 Continue CAM 2 lecture Natural Selection
Lab
Read FOS Chapter 10: Plate Tectonics

pp. 185-210

Read FOS Chapter 11 all: The Solar System
pp. 211-232
Water Homework part 1 due

4/9 Vaccine-Autism Case Study
Reading Quiz 7 due
---------------
13th 4/14 Atlantis and Crystal Power; What Rocks
Extra Credit -
Post

and Minerals Can and Cant Tell Us

Begin lecture on The Origin of Planet Earth (Geology)
Water Homework part 2 due

FiLCHeRS assigned; due 4/30 (no late work accepted)

4/16 Finish Geology lecture and

begin Cryptids lecture Legendary Creatures and a Discouraging

Lack of Evidence: Nessie, Big Foot, and the Chupacabra!

Read FOS Chapter 12: "The Basic Unit of Life the
Cell" pp. 233-260
Read FOS Chapter 13 all: "Genetics" pp. 261-286
Read Schick Chapter 8 all: "Relativism, Truth and Reality
-- pp. 295-315
---------------
14th 4/21 Finish Cryptid lecture and

Whale Lab

Begin lecture on genetics -Can Vulcans and Humans

Make Babies? The Genetic Code of Life

Reading Quiz 8 due

Read FOS Chapter 14 all: "Evolution -- pp. 287-316


part 181-197 (creationism)

4/23 Finish Genetics and begin Evolution

15th 4/28 Continue Evolution lecture

Reading Quiz 9 due

35
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
4/30 There is Grandeur in this View: Evolutionary

Theory as the Foundation of Biology: Scientific

Synthesis and Consistency
Homework FiLCHeRS due
Peer evaluations due
---------------

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

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

A summary list of all of the READING QUIZZES, their due dates, and the
chapters they cover is provided on the next 2 pages.

A summary list of the group homework assignments is provided on the
last page of this document.
36
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
Reading Quizzes for Spring Semester 2015

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

Schick = How to Think about Weird Things by Schick and Vaughn
FOS = Foundations of Science text. * In addition to the new, custom
Foundations of Science (FOS) page numbers, the earlier Conceptual Integrated
Science (CIS) page numbers are also listed after the FOS page numbers in
case you have the earlier edition. They are shown in green, italicized font.
PowerPoint lectures on BB are in purple

Quiz 1: Thursday 1/22
1) Schick Chapter 1 all: Close Encounters with the Strange pp. 1-13
2) Read FOS - Chapter 1: About Science pp. 1-14
(CIS Chapter 1 all: About Science pp. 1-12)
3) Read Schick Chapter 6: Science and Its Pretenders part 158-181 (nature of
science and scientific reasoning)
4) Read Schick Chapter 3: Arguments Good, Bad and Weird parts 33-39 and 49-
57. (Pay particular attention to pages 49-57 dealing with informal fallacies)

1) Read Schick Chapter 4: Knowledge, Belief and Evidence parts 62-84 and
summary on 90 (opinion vs. knowledge and expertise)

1) Read Schick Chapter 5: Looking for Truth in Personal Experience part 96-143
(perception and memory problems)

1) Read FOS Chapter 2: The Universe pp. 15-34
(CIS Chapter 28: all The Universe pp. 649-666)
3) Read FOS Chapter 3: The Atom pp. 35-56
(CIS Chapter 9: The Atom part 167-179)
4) Read FOS Chapter 4: Energy and Momentum pp. 57-76
(CIS Chapter 4 on Energy part 63 -74)
5) Read Schick Chapter 4 Knowledge, Belief and Evidence part 84-90 (astrology
section)
6) Read Schick Chapter 7: Case Studies in the Extraordinary part 234-248 (UFO
abductions)
7) Read FOS Chapter 5: Heat pp. 77-98
(CIS Chapter 6 Heat part 98-104)
37
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667

~1) Laws and Relativity lecture posted on BB. This information is critical to the Star
Trek lab
2) Read FOS Chapter 6 Describing Motion pp. 99-116
(CIS Chapter 2 all: "Describing Motion" pp. 17-30)
3) Read FOS Chapter 7: "Newtons Laws of Motion" pp. 117-138
(CIS Chapter 3: "Newtons Laws of Motion" part 36-49)
~4) The Paranormal lecture posted on BB Part 1: History of Ghosts, Psychic
Energy, Psychic Powers, Psychic Detectives, Psychic Healers and Mediums.
5) Read Schick Chapter 2 all: The Possibility of the Impossible pp. 14-29 (the
possibility of ESP and precognition)
6) Read Schick Chapter 6: Science and Its Pretenders part 197-213
(parapsychology)
7) Read Schick Chapter 7: Case Studies in the Extraordinary parts 220-227 and
248-276 (talking to the dead, near-death experiences, and ghosts)

1) Read Schick Chapter 7 (homeopathy) part 227-231
2) Read Schick Chapter 5 Looking for Truth in Personal Experience part 141-150
(anecdotal evidence, placebo effects and controlled studies)
3) Read FOS Chapter 8: Human Biology Care and Maintenance pp. 139-160
(CIS Chapter 20: "Human Biology II Care and Maintenance" part 461-463 and
page 70 on the "Placebo Effect"
ENV Homework: 4/2
1) Read Schick Chapter 7 (climate change) part 283-288
* This assignment includes an analysis of claims regarding global climate change.
The information for this will be included as part of the assignment.

1) Read FOS Chapter 9: Rocks and Minerals pp. 161-184
(CIS Chapter 23: Rocks and Minerals" parts 531-537 and 541-552
2) Read FOS Chapter 10: Plate Tectonics pp. 185-210
(CIS Chapter 22 all: Plate Tectonics pp. 505-526
3) Read FOS Chapter 11: The Solar System pp. 211-232
(CIS Chapter 27 all: The Solar System pp. 320-338)

Quiz 8: Tuesday 4/21
1) Read FOS Chapter 12: "The Basic Unit of Life the Cell" pp. 233-260
(CIS Chapter 15: "The basic Unit of Life the Cell" - parts 319-328 and 334-336
(cell reproduction)
2) Read FOS Chapter 13 all: "Genetics" pp. 261-286
(CIS Chapter 16 all: "Genetics" pp. 348-368)

38
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
3) Read Schick Chapter 8 all: "Relativism, Truth and Reality pp. 295-315

Quiz 9: Tuesday 4/28
4) Read FOS Chapter 14 all: "Evolution pp. 287-316
(CIS Chapter 17 all: "Evolution pp. 372-396)

5) Read Schick Chapter 6: Science and Its Pretenders part 181-197 (creationism)

Group Homework Assignments

* These are group assignments and descriptions of them will be provided at the time
they are assigned.

The argument assignment and the AAW Water Homework assignments require
both individual and group effort. So, time must be allotted to coordinate work with
the group members.

The FiLCHeRS homework assignment consists of both short answer and multiple
choice questions. Some questions will require that you look up information on the
Internet. For these questions, you will be asked to cite the web addresses of the
sites you consulted to obtain the information.

1. Argument HW assigned 1/27

- due 2/19

2. Water HW assigned 3/17

- Part 1 due 4/7

- Part 2 due 4/14

4. FiLCHeRS HW assigned 4/14

- due 4/30

39

Redesigning A General Education Science Course To Promote Critical Thinking

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Redesigning A General Education Science Course To Promote Critical Thinking

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CBELife Sciences Education

Vol. 14, 112, Fall 2015

These authors contributed equally to this work.

Present address: Department of Integrative Biology, Michigan

their courses. For details regarding experimental analyses, results,

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

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

graduation (Arum and Roksa, 2014). Science courses, with

in the sciences (Freeman etal., 2014), 85% of the 1.8 million

CBELife Sciences Education

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

Critical Thinking and Gen Ed Science

Integrating Content with Process

Addressing Cognitive Barriers

exercises to demonstrate the malleability and fallibility of

Vol. 14, Fall 2015

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

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

and 1990s (Nathan and Snedeker, 2001). As with the earlier

CBELife Sciences Education

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

Critical Thinking and Gen Ed Science

Pre and post

responses on the MATE, and they were informed that their

Assessment Reliability and Validity

Vol. 14, Fall 2015

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

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

FoS course. Similarly, we have posttest MATE scores from

CBELife Sciences Education

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

Critical Thinking and Gen Ed Science

they were freshmen or sophomores (i.e., lower-division

Figure 1. Students who complete the experimental FoS course show

Lower- versus Upper-Division Students and Comparison

Figure 2. Nonscience students selecting to enroll in one of their

Vol. 14, Fall 2015

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

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

after one semester in our experimental course (posttest FoS

Student Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution

Figure 3.Students who complete the experimental FoS course

of evolution (pretest = 66.17 0.45, posttest = 75.45 0.49;

CBELife Sciences Education

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

Critical Thinking and Gen Ed Science

the CAT scores achieved by juniors and seniors nationwide

Student Acceptance of Evolutionary Theory

comparable studies suggest we have much to learn about

Assessment Validity, Revisited

Vol. 14, Fall 2015

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

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

the MATE lacked construct validity for preservice teachers

Arum R, Roksa J (2010). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on

Students completing the FoS course significantly improve

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

Critical Thinking and Gen Ed Science

Nelson CE (2008). Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more

Impey C, Buxner S, Antonellis J (2012). Non-scientific beliefs among

Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL (2014). Effective messages in

Offit PA (2011). Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement

Pascarella ET, Blaich C, Martin GL, Hanson JM (2011). How robust

Vol. 14, Fall 2015

Vol. 14, Fall 2015

Vol. 14, Fall 2015

Vol. 14, Fall 2015

Vol. 14, Fall 2015