The Physics Teacher -- December 2009 -- Volume 47, Issue 9, pp. 591

Shaping Attitudes Toward Science in an Introductory Astronomy Course

David Wittman

University of California, Davis, CA

Full Text: Download PDF FREE | View Cart
At many universities, astronomy is a popular way for nonscience majors to fulfill a general education requirement. Because general education astronomy may be the only college‐level science course taken by these students, it is the last chance to shape the science attitudes of these future journalists, teachers, politicians, and voters. Hobson1 recently reported on research indicating that general education requirements (often as little as a single class) are responsible for the higher measured level of science literacy in the United States as compared to Europe.

© 2009 American Association of Physics Teachers

KEYWORDS and PACS

PACS

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN

0031-921X (print)  

ARTICLE DATA


  1. A. Hobson, “The surprising effectiveness of college scientific literacy courses,” Phys. Teach. 46, 404–406 (Oct. 2008)PHTEAH000046000007000404000001.
  2. The two-thirds figure includes those who rated the statement as “definitely true” or “probably true” in a USAToday/Gallup Poll published June 7, 2007: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_N.htm?csp=34. Polls do not ask specifically about the age of the Earth, but one can take this as a rough indicator of public attitudes. The 38% figure for college graduates comes from a meta-analysis of several Gallup polls with slightly varying wording: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/ American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx.
  3. W. K. Adams et al., “A new instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey,” Phys. Rev. ST-PER 2, 010101 (2006); see also http://CLASS.colorado.edu.
  4. Edward F. Redish et al., “Student expectations in introductory physics,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 212–224 (March 1998)AJPIAS000066000003000212000001; see also http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/ex-pects/index.html.
  5. I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, “Views About Sciences Survey,” Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Saint Louis, MO (1996). ERIC Document No. ED394840. See also http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.
  6. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/VASS-P204_Taxonomy.pdf
  7. Interested readers may download the survey at http://ftp.aip.org/cgi-bin/epaps?ID=E-PHTEAH-47-015909. For more information on EPAPS, see http://www.aip.org/pubservs/epaps.html. [EPAPS]
  8. Credit for this idea goes to Steve Shawl of Kansas University.
  9. R. R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 64–74 (Jan. 1998)AJPIAS000066000001000064000001.
  10. M. Zeilik et al., “Conceptual astronomy. II. Replicating conceptual gains, probing atti-tude changes across three semesters,” Am. J. Phys. 67 (S1), 923–927 (Oct. 1999)AJPIAS000067000010000923000001. [ISI]
  11. A. Elby, “Helping physics students learn how to learn,” Am. J. Phys. 69, S54–S64 (July 2001)AJPIAS0000690000S1000S54000001. [ISI]
  12. J. Marx and K. Cummings, “What Factors Really Influence Shifts in Students' Attitudes and Expectations in an Introductory Physics Course?” AIP Conference Proceedings 883, 101 (2007)APCPCS000883000001000101000001.


Supplemental Files (EPAPS)



Close

close