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.
REFERENCES
1.
A.
Hobson
, “The surprising effectiveness of college scientific literacy courses
,” Phys. Teach.
46
, 404
–406
(Oct. 2008
).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
); 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.
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
).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
).11.
A.
Elby
, “Helping physics students learn how to learn
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, S54
–S64
(July 2001
).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
).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2009 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2009
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
