AER Banner
  • Keyword
  • Volume/Page
  • DOI
  • Citation
  • Advanced
 
   
 
 
Astronomy Education Review / Volume 12 / Issue 1 / RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

2013, AER, 12 (1), 010101, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2012042

Astro 101 Students' Perceptions of Science: Results from the Thinking About Science Survey Instrument

Published 15 February 2013

Colin S. Wallace and Edward E. Prather

Center for Astronomy Education (CAE), Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721

Benjamin M. Mendelsohn

University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africaand West Valley College, Saratoga, California 95032

View MapView Map
Full Text: Read Online (HTML) | Download PDF | View Cart
What are the underlying worldviews and beliefs about the role of science in society held by students enrolled in a college-level, general education, introductory astronomy course (Astro 101)—and are those beliefs affected by active engagement instruction shown to significantly increase students' conceptual knowledge and reasoning abilities related to astronomy? To help answer this question, we administered Cobern's (Cobern 2001) Thinking About Science Survey Instrument (TSSI) to an Astro 101 class in the spring 2011. The TSSI probes students' beliefs about the relationship between science and many aspects of contemporary society. In this paper, we analyze the 442 pre-instruction and 294 post-instruction student responses we received to the TSSI. Many students select responses to the TSSI's items indicating they have positive views about the role of science in society. We also see a slight increase in the number of positive responses pre- to post-instruction. While there are limitations to the inferences one can draw from responses to a Likert scale survey such as the TSSI, this work nevertheless provides an important first step in a larger project to understand and affect the worldviews of general education, introductory astronomy students. To better interpret the significance of these results, we conclude by comparing the TSSI data to preliminary data from a related study in which we collected students' written responses to a series of provocative, open-ended prompts on the relationship between science and society.

© 2013 The American Astronomical Society

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords

astronomy, continuing education, physics education, College non-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 10 August 2012
Accepted 04 January 2013
Published online 15 February 2013
Digital Object Identifier
http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2012042

    References

  1. Adams, W. K., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N. D., and Wieman, C. E. 2005, “The Design and Validation of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey,” in PERC Proceedings 2004, eds. J. Marx, P. Heron, and S. Franklin, Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 45.
  2. Arendale, D. 1997, “Supplemental Instruction (SI): Review of Research Concerning the Effectiveness of SI from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Other Institutions from Across the United States,” in Proceedings of the 17th and 18th Annual Institutes for Learning Assistance Professionals: 1996 and 1997,” eds. S. Mioduski and G. Enright, Tucson, AZ: University Learning Center, 1.
  3. Ausubel, D. P. 1966, “An Evaluation of the BSCS Approach to High School Biology,” The American Biology Teacher, 28, 176.
  4. Cobern, W. W. 1996, “Worldview Theory and Conceptual Change in Science Education,” Science Education, 80, 579.
  5. Cobern, W. W. 2001, “The Thinking about Science Survey Instrument (TSSI)—SLCSP 151,” http://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/slcsp151/tssi-v2.pdf.
  6. Cobern, W. W., and Loving, C. C. 2002, “Investigation of Preservice Elementary Teachers' Thinking about Science,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1016.
  7. Coe, R. 2002, “It's the Effect Size, Stupid: What effect size is and why it is important,” paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Exeter, UK.
  8. Cohen, J. 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. 2001, “Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results,” American Journal of Physics, 69, 970.
  10. Dagher, Z. R. and BouJaoude, S. 1997, “Scientific Views and Religious Beliefs of College Students: The Case of Biological Evolution,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 429.
  11. Deming, G., and Hufnagel, B. 2001, “Who's Taking ASTR 101?” Physics Teacher, 39, 368PHTEAH000039000006000368000001.
  12. George, D. and Mallery, P. 2009, SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  13. Gould, S. J. 1997, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural History, 106, 16.
  14. Gray, K., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C. E., and Perkins, K. K. 2008, “Students Know What Physicists Believe, but They Don't Agree: A Study Using the CLASS Survey,” Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 4, 020106.
  15. Hansson, L. and Lindahl, B. 2010, “`I Have Chosen Another Way of Thinking': Students' Relations to Science With a Focus on Worldview,” Science & Education, 19, 895.
  16. Hartung, J., Knapp, G., and Sinha, B. K. 2008, Statistical Meta-Analysis with Applications, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  17. Helve, H. 1991, “The Formation of Religious Attitudes and World Views: A Longitudinal Study of Young Finns,” Social Compass, 38, 373.
  18. Hudgins, D. W., Prather, E. E., Grayson, D. J., and Smits, D. P. 2006, “Effectiveness of Collaborative Ranking Tasks on Student Understanding of Key Astronomy Concepts,” Astronomy Education Review, 5, 1.
  19. Irzik, G. and Nola, R. 2009, “Worldviews and Their Relation to Science,” Science & Education, 18, 729.
  20. Kearney, M. 1984, World View, Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp Publishers, Inc.
  21. Kilbourn, B. 1980, “World Views and Science Teaching,” in Seeing Curriculum in a New Light: Essays from Science Education, eds. H. Munby, G. Orpwood, and T. Russell, Toronto, ON: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 34.
  22. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. 2004, “The Psychology of Worldviews,” Review of General Psychology, 8, 3.
  23. LoPresto, M. C. 2010, “Using Visual Assessments and Tutorials to Teach Solar System Concepts in Introductory Astronomy,” Astronomy Education Review, 9, 010101AERSCZ000009000001010101000001.
  24. Lord, F. M., and Novick, M. R. 1968, Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  25. Mooney, C., and Kirshenbaum, S. 2009, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, New York, NY: Basic Books.
  26. Otero, V., Finkelstein, N., McCray, R., and Pollock, S. 2006, “Who Is Responsible for Preparing Science Teachers?,” Science, 313, 445. [MEDLINE]
  27. Otero, V., Pollock, S., and Finkelstein, N. 2010, “A Physics Department's Role in Preparing Physics Teachers: The Colorado Learning Assistant Model,” American Journal of Physics, 78, 1218AJPIAS000078000011001218000001.
  28. Perkins, K. K., Adams, W. K., Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D., and Wieman, C. E. 2005, “Correlating Student Beliefs with Student Learning Using the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey,” in PERC Proceedings 2004, eds. J. Marx, P. Heron, and S. Franklin, Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 61.
  29. Prather, E. E., Rudolph, A. L., and Brissenden, G. 2009, “Teaching and Learning Astronomy in the 21st Century,” Physics Today, 62, 41.
  30. Prather, E. E., Rudolph, A., and Brissenden, G. 2011, “Using Research to Bring Interactive Learning Strategies into General Education Mega-Courses,” Peer Review, 13, 27.
  31. Prather, E. E., Rudolph, A. L., Brissenden, G., and Schlingman, W. M. 2009, “A National Study Assessing the Teaching and Learning of Introductory Astronomy. Part I. The Effect of Interactive Instruction,” American Journal of Physics, 77, 320AJPIAS000077000004000320000001.
  32. Prather, E. E., Slater, T. F., Adams, J. P., Bailey, J. M., Jones, L. V., and Dostal, J. A. 2004, “Research on a Lecture-Tutorial Approach to Teaching Introductory Astronomy for Non-Science Majors,” Astronomy Education Review, 3, 122.
  33. Proper, H., Wideen, M. F., and Ivany, G. 1988, “World View Projected by Science Teachers: A Study of Classroom Dialogue,” Science Education, 72, 547.
  34. Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., and Steinberg, R. N. 1998, “Student Expectations in Introductory Physics,” American Journal of Physics, 66, 212.
  35. Rudolph, A. L., Prather, E. E., Brissenden, G., Consiglio, D., and Gonzaga, V. 2010, “A National Study Assessing the Teaching and Learning of Introductory Astronomy. Part II. The Connection between Student Demographics and Learning,” Astronomy Education Review, 9, 010107AERSCZ000009000001010107000001.
  36. Säther, J. 2003, “The Concept of Ideology in Analysis of Fundamental Questions in Science Education: A Review with Selected Examples from Norwegian Curricula and Textbooks,” Science & Education, 12, 237.
  37. Smolicz, J. J. and Nunan, E. E. 1975, “The Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Science Education: The Demythologizing of School Science,” Studies in Science Education, 2, 101.
  38. Wallace, C. S., Prather, E. E., and Duncan, D. K. 2012, “A Study of General Education Astronomy Students' Understandings of Cosmology. Part V. The Effects of a New Suite of Cosmology Lecture-Tutorials on Students' Conceptual Knowledge,” International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1297.

Figures (9) Tables (12)

Figures (click on thumbnails to view enlargements)

FIG.1
The average post-instruction responses of the nine items in the “Epistemology” category of the TSSI. White diamonds indicate items for which there was no statistically significant difference in the pre- and post-instruction response distributions. Black dots indicate items for which there was a statistically significant difference in the pre- and post-instruction response distributions. Response values below the grey band indicate disagreement with the “common image of science,” response values above the grey band indicate agreement with the “common image of science,” and response values within the grey band indicate neutrality with respect to the “common image of science”

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

FIG.2
The average post-instruction responses of the ten items in the “Science and the Economy” category of the TSSI

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

FIG.3
The average post-instruction responses of the four items in the “Science and the Environment” category of the TSSI

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

FIG.4
The average post-instruction responses of the ten items in the “Public Policy and Science” category of the TSSI

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

FIG.5
The average post-instruction responses of the four items in the “Science and Public Health” category of the TSSI

FIG.5 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

FIG.6
The average post-instruction responses of the seven items in the “Science, Religion, and Morality” category of the TSSI

FIG.6 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

FIG.7
The average post-instruction responses of the four items in the “Science, Emotion, and Aesthetics” category of the TSSI

FIG.7 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

FIG.8
The average post-instruction responses of the four items in the “Science, Race, and Gender” category of the TSSI

FIG.8 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

FIG.9
The average post-instruction responses of the eight items in the “Science for All” category of the TSSI

FIG.9 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

Tables

Table I. The nine categories probed by the TSSI (descriptions taken verbatim from Cobern 20015 and Cobern and Loving 20026)

View Table
Table II. Statistics for all 60 TSSI items

View Table
Table III. The nine “Epistemology” items

View Table
Table IV. The ten “Science and the Economy” items

View Table
Table V. The four “Science and the Environment” items

View Table
Table VI. The ten “Public Policy and Science” items

View Table
Table VII. The four “Science and Public Health” items

View Table
Table VIII. The seven “Science, Religion, and Morality” items

View Table
Table IX. The four “Science, Emotions, and Aesthetics” items

View Table
Table X. The four “Science, Race, and Gender” items

View Table
Table XI. The eight “Science for All” items

View Table
Table XII. Statistics for the TSSI's categories and the TSSI as a whole

View Table


Close
ADVERTISEMENT

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

close