Teaching the Logic of Falsification: A Classroom Excercise

Every science teacher soon discovers that the intuitions students use to solve problems are frequently at variance with the critical thinking skills required by science. 1be exercise presented here focuses on the value of making scientific hypotheses and then attempting to falsify rather than confirm them. When challenged to test a hypothesis, intuitive thinkers tend to show a confirmation bias, i.e., they will propose a test in which the results will be a positive instance of the hypothesis (Einhorn and Hogarth, 1978; Wason, 1960). Scientists, on the other hand, know that tests are specific instances that cannot inductively \u27\u27prove the hypothesis. Instead, scientists follow the lead of Karl Popper (1959), who formulated the logic of falsification. Popper asserted that support for a hypothesis is always provisional. Hypotheses cannot ever be conclusively proven. They can, however, be disproved. A negative test in which the hypothesis is not supported should cause the scientist to discard the hypothesis and try another

Book Review - The Unnatural Nature of Science: Why Science Does Not Make (Common) Sense

A distinguished psychologist once wrote that if you wished to understand the history of scientific thought you need a psychologist at your elbow. Lewis Wolpert, Professor of Biology at University College in London, has taken that sentiment further. It seems that if you wish to understand the difference between scientific and nonscientific thinking you should delve deeply into the literature of cognitive psychology. For natural thinking, ordinary, day-to-day common sense will never give an understanding about the nature of science. Instead, the trained scientist engages in unnatural (i.e., counterintuitive) thinking about a word that defies ordinary experience. In order to understand science, the teacher, the student, and the citizen need to understand the esoteric manner in which scientists gather knowledge

Book Review - The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge

The June, 1997 issue of Harper\u27s Magazine included a list of recently published books that have titles beginning with The End of . There are thirty-one titles on the list. Publishers have been rushing to cash in on the public\u27s emotional reaction to the coming end of the century. It is difficult to take some of these works seriously. Perhaps the hardest thesis to swallow is that science, including physics, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience, not to mention the social sciences and the philosophy of science, is coming to an end just as our somewhat arbitrary calendar ticks over to a new millennium. John Horgan, a science writer for Scientific American, draws on years of interviews with leading scientists and philosophers to support this thanatopic thesis in The End of Science

The CREATE Approach to Primary Literature Shifts Undergraduates' Self-Assessed Ability to Read and Analyze Journal Articles, Attitudes about Science, and Epistemological Beliefs

The C. R. E. A. T. E. (Consider, Read, Elucidate hypotheses, Analyze and interpret data, Think of the next Experiment) method uses intensive analysis of primary literature in the undergraduate classroom to demystify and humanize science. We have reported previously that the method improves students' critical thinking and content integration abilities, while at the same time enhancing their self-reported understanding of "who does science, and why." We report here the results of an assessment that addressed C. R. E. A. T. E. students' attitudes about the nature of science, beliefs about learning, and confidence in their ability to read, analyze, and explain research articles. Using a Likert-style survey administered pre- and postcourse, we found significant changes in students' confidence in their ability to read and analyze primary literature, self-assessed understanding of the nature of science, and epistemological beliefs (e. g., their sense of whether knowledge is certain and scientific talent innate). Thus, within a single semester, the inexpensive C. R. E. A. T. E. method can shift not just students' analytical abilities and understanding of scientists as people, but can also positively affect students' confidence with analysis of primary literature, their insight into the processes of science, and their beliefs about learning.NSFNSF CCLI/TUES 0311117, 0618536, 1021443Molecular Bioscience

Facilitating Growth through Frustration: Using Genomics Research in a Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience

A hallmark of the research experience is encountering difficulty and working through those challenges to achieve success. This ability is essential to being a successful scientist, but replicating such challenges in a teaching setting can be difficult. The Genomics Education Partnership (GEP) is a consortium of faculty who engage their students in a genomics Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE). Students participate in genome annotation, generating gene models using multiple lines of experimental evidence. Our observations suggested that the students’ learning experience is continuous and recursive, frequently beginning with frustration but eventually leading to success as they come up with defendable gene models. In order to explore our “formative frustration” hypothesis, we gathered data from faculty via a survey, and from students via both a general survey and a set of student focus groups. Upon analyzing these data, we found that all three datasets mentioned frustration and struggle, as well as learning and better understanding of the scientific process. Bioinformatics projects are particularly well suited to the process of iteration and refinement because iterations can be performed quickly and are inexpensive in both time and money. Based on these findings, we suggest that a dynamic of “formative frustration” is an important aspect for a successful CURE

Crossing Boundaries: Collaborating to Assess Information Literacy [AAC&U Conference]

Carolyn Sanford, Jackie Lauer-Glebov, David Lopatto and Jo Beld presentation at the AAC&U Conference, March 200

A Central Support System Can Facilitate Implementation and Sustainability of a Classroom-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) in Genomics

In their 2012 report, the President\u27s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology advocated replacing standard science laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses -a challenging proposition that presents practical and pedagogical difficulties. In this paper, we describe our collective experiences working with the Genomics Education Partnership, a nationwide faculty consortium that aims to provide undergraduates with a research experience in genomics through a scheduled course (a classroom-based undergraduate research experience, or CURE). We examine the common barriers encountered in implementing a CURE, program elements of most value to faculty, ways in which a shared core support system can help, and the incentives for and rewards of establishing a CURE on our diverse campuses. While some of the barriers and rewards are specific to a research project utilizing a genomics approach, other lessons learned should be broadly applicable. We find that a central system that supports a shared investigation can mitigate some shortfalls in campus infrastructure (such as time for new curriculum development, availability of IT services) and provides collegial support for change. Our findings should be useful for designing similar supportive programs to facilitate change in the way we teach science for undergraduates

Generating genome browsers to facilitate undergraduate-driven collaborative genome annotation

Scientists are sequencing new genomes at an increasing rate with the goal of associating genome contents with phenotypic traits. After a new genome is sequenced and assembled, structural gene annotation is often the first step in analysis. Despite advances in computational gene prediction algorithms, most eukaryotic genomes still benefit from manual gene annotation. Undergraduates can become skilled annotators, and in the process learn both about genes/genomes and about how to utilize large datasets. Data visualizations provided by a genome browser are essential for manual gene annotation, enabling annotators to quickly evaluate multiple lines of evidence (e.g., sequence similarity, RNA-Seq, gene predictions, repeats). However, creating genome browsers requires extensive computational skills; lack of the expertise required remains a major barrier for many biomedical researchers and educators.To address these challenges, the Genomics Education Partnership (GEP; https://gep.wustl.edu/) has partnered with the Galaxy Project (https://galaxyproject.org) to develop G-OnRamp (http://g-onramp.org), a web-based platform for creating UCSC Assembly Hubs and JBrowse genome browsers. G-OnRamp can also convert a JBrowse instance into an Apollo instance for collaborative genome annotations in research and educational settings. G-OnRamp enables researchers to easily visualize their experimental results, educators to create Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) centered on genome annotation, and students to participate in genomics research.Development of G-OnRamp was guided by extensive user feedback from in-person workshops. Sixty-five researchers and educators from over 40 institutions participated in these workshops, which produced over 20 genome browsers now available for research and education. For example, genome browsers for four parasitoid wasp species were used in a CURE engaging 142 students taught by 13 faculty members —producing a total of 192 gene models. G-OnRamp can be deployed on a personal computer or on cloud computing platforms, and the genome browsers produced can be transferred to the CyVerse Data Store for long-term access