Redesigning a General Education Science Course to Promote Critical Thinking

Abstract

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.

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 8–13) vs. the pooled posttest CAT scores for all six traditional gen ed science courses (Table 1, rows 1–7). (B) Pooled pre- vs. posttest CAT scores for all six semesters of the FoS course (Table 1, rows 8–13) vs. the pooled CAT scores for the three different gen ed science courses (introductory environmental studies, introductory physics, and introductory chemistry) for which we had pre- and postcourse CAT test scores (Table 1, rows 5–7). (C) Posttest CAT scores adjusted by pretest CAT scores for the same data set used in B.

Figure 2.

Non–science students selecting to enroll in one of their gen ed science courses as entry-level freshmen or sophomores may represent a different subset of students than those who delay 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 8–13 in Table 1) compared with national norms. (B) Pretest and posttest CAT scores of upper-division (UD; i.e., junior/senior) FoS students (again pooled over all six semesters, rows 8–13 in Table 1) compared with national norms.

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 4–8) 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 1–3). Histograms show means + 1 SE.