AER Banner
  • Keyword
  • Volume/Page
  • DOI
  • Citation
  • Advanced
 
   
 
 
Astronomy Education Review / Volume 11 / Issue 1 / RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

2012, AER, 11 (1), 010111, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2012016

Non-Scientific Beliefs Among Undergraduate Students

Published 29 October 2012

Chris Impey and Sanlyn Buxner

Department of Astronomy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721

Jessie Antonellis

Little Priest Tribal College, Winnebago, Nebraska 68071

View MapView Map
Full Text: Read Online (HTML) | Download PDF | View Cart
A survey of over 11 000 undergraduate students' knowledge and attitudes related to science and technology over a 22-year period included statements that probed faith-based beliefs and various aspects of pseudoscience belief and superstition. The results reveal that nonscientific ways of thinking are resistant to formal instruction, changing surprisingly little over the course of a college career that typically includes three science courses. The level of basic science knowledge among undergraduates is only weakly coupled to attitudes towards pseudoscience, and it coexists with attitudes and beliefs that are faith-based. These results provide a challenge for educators who seek to improve the generally low level of science literacy among college graduates and members of the general public.

© 2012 The American Astronomical Society

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords

astronomy, educational courses, further education, physics education, Science literacy, Pseudoscience, Religious beliefs, College non-science majors

PACS

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN

1539-1515 (online)

Publisher

$abstract.society.value is a Member of CrossRef The American Astronomical Society

ARTICLE DATA

History
Received 24 April 2012
Accepted 04 October 2012
Published online 29 October 2012
Digital Object Identifier
http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2012016

    References

  1. Antonellis, J., Buxner, S., Impey, C., and Sugarman, H. 2012, “Surveying Science Literacy Among Undergraduates: Insights from Open-Ended Responses,” Journal of College Science Teaching, 41, 82.
  2. Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R. 2000, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience & School, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  3. Buxner, S., Antonellis, J., and Impey, C. D. 2010, “A Long-Term Study of Undergraduates' Science Literacy: Exploring Responses to Policy-Driven Survey Items,” Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (Philadelphia, PA).
  4. Buxner, S. R.,Impey, C. D., and Antonellis, J. 2012, “Analysis and findings of 22-years of science literacy and attitudes towards science and technology data,” (unpublished).
  5. College Board, 2012, http://www.collegeboard.org/.
  6. Donovan, S., and Bransford, J. D. 2005, How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  7. Ecklund, E. H., and Scheitle, C. P. 2007, “Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics,” Social Problems, 54, 289.
  8. Edwards vs. Aguilard 862, U.S. 578 (1987)
  9. Fraknoi, A. 2002, “Enrollments in Astronomy 101 Courses,” Astronomy Education Review, 1, 121.
  10. Gauche, H. G. Jr. 2003, Scientific Method in Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Goode, E. 2002, “Education, Scientific Knowledge, and Belief in the Paranormal,” Skeptical Inquirer, 26, 24.
  12. Gould, S. J. 2002, Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, New York: Ballantine Books.
  13. Hafner, A. W. 1993, Readers Guide to Alternative Health Methods, Chicago: American Medical Association.
  14. Hobson, A. 2008, “The Surprising Effectiveness of College Science Literacy Courses,” The Physics Teacher, 46, 404PHTEAH000046000007000404000001.
  15. Hobson, A. 2000, “Teaching Relevant Science for Scientific Literacy,” Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 238.
  16. Impey, C. 2010, “Science Education in the Age of Science” in Organizations, People and Strategies in Astronomy, ed. A. Heck, New York: Springer Science, 70.
  17. Impey, C. D., Buxner, S., Antonellis, J., Johnson, E., and King, C. 2011, “A Twenty Year Survey of Science Literacy Among College Undergraduates,” Journal of College Science Teaching, 40, 70.
  18. Kunda, Z. 1990, “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480. [MEDLINE]
  19. Lindeman, M., and Aarnio, L. 2007, “Superstitious, Magical, and Paranormal Beliefs: An Integrative Model,” Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 731.
  20. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R. 1979, “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098.
  21. Losh, S. C., Tavani, C. M., Njoroge, R., Wilke, R., and Macauley, M. 2003, “What Does Education Really Do,” Skeptical Inquirer, 27, 30.
  22. Martin, M. 1994, “Pseudoscience, the Paranormal, and Science Education,” Science and Education, 3, 357.
  23. National Science Board 1979, Science and Engineering Indicators, Washington, DC: National Science Board.
  24. National Science Board 2006, Science and Engineering Indicators, Washington, DC: National Science Board.
  25. National Science Board 2012, Science and Engineering Indicators, Washington, DC: National Science Board.
  26. Pew Research Center for People and the Press 2009, “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago,” Retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/528/.
  27. Resnick, D. B. 2000, “A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 31(2), 249.
  28. Scheitle, C. P. 2011, “U.S. College Students' Perception of Science and Religion: Conflict, Collaboration, or Independence? A Research Note,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 175.
  29. Shermer, M. 1997, Why People Believe Weird Things, New York: W. H. Freeman.
  30. Sugarman, H., Impey, C., Buxner, S., and Antonellis, J. 2011, “Astrology Beliefs among Undergraduate Students,” Astronomy Education Review, 10, 010101AERSCZ000010000001010101000001.
  31. Thagard, P. R. 1978, “Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience,” Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 1, edited by P. D. Asquith and I. Hacking, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.

Figures (4) Tables (3)

Figures (click on thumbnails to view enlargements)

FIG.1
Comparison of percent correct between Freshman (blue) (n = 5190) and Seniors (red) (n = 1094) for select science literacy questions.

FIG.1 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

FIG.2
Distribution of student responses to questions about the benefit of science and technology.

FIG.2 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

FIG.3
Distribution of student responses to pseudoscience and astrobiology related questions.

FIG.3 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

FIG.4
Distribution of student responses to faith-based questions

FIG.4 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

Tables

Table I. Initial categories developed for Likert-scale attitude science and technology items

View Table
Table II. Final factors and questions for Likert-scale attitude items

View Table
Table III. Average science literacy scores of students with average factor scores at or more extreme than “agree” or “disagree” for each category

View Table


Close
ADVERTISEMENT

Copyright © 2001 - American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.

close