Advertisement

Research in Higher Education

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 443–453 | Cite as

Normal science and the paranormal: The effect of a scientific method course on students' beliefs

  • Dean Morier
  • David Keeports
Article

Abstract

A nonequivalent control group design was employed to test the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary course on the scientific method in increasing students' skepticism toward the paranormal. The course explored legitimate methods of scientific inquiry and compared them to faulty, and often fraudulent, methods of pseudosciences. Topics included elementary logic, logical fallacies, statistics, probability, the scientific method, characteristics of pseudosciences, and the prevalence and persistence of pseudoscientific theories and beliefs. Students enrolled in a psychology and law class served as a control group for the “Science and Pseudoscience” class (the treatment group). At the start of the term, students in both groups completed the Belief in the Paranormal Scale (Jones, Russell, and Nickel, 1977) and a measure of beliefs in their own psychic powers. At the end of the semester, students completed these same measures. Results demonstrated that while there were no initial differences between the control and treatment groups in their belief in the paranormal, students in the “Science and Pseudoscience” class demonstrated substantially reduced belief in the paranormal relative to the control class. There were no changes in students' beliefs in their own paranormal powers. Implications for science education and research on teaching thinking are discussed.

Keywords

Critical Thinking Scientific Method Control Class Normal Science Critical Thinking Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcock, J. E., and Otis, L. P. (1980). Critical thinking and belief in the paranormal.Psychological Reports 46: 479–482.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, J. (1988).Thinking and Deciding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., and Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education.American Psychologist 41: 1123–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewey, J. (1933).How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
  6. Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. (1991).Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Gallup, G. H., Jr. and Newport, F. (1991). Belief in paranormal phenomena among adult Americans.Skeptical Inquirer 15: 137–146.Google Scholar
  8. Glaser, E. M. (1985). Critical thinking: Education for responsible citizenship in a democracy.National Forum 65: 24–27.Google Scholar
  9. Halpern, D. F. (1984).Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Halpern, D. F. (1987). Analogies as a critical thinking skill. In D. E. Berger, K. Pezdek, and W. P. Banks (Eds.), Applications of cognitive Psychology: Problem solving, Education, and Computing (pp. 75–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Halpern, D. F. (1991, August). Student outcomes assessment: What's a nice student like you learning in a university like this? G. Stanley Hall Address presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, W. H. (1980, August). Teaching anomalistics. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, W. H., Russell, D. W., and Nickel, T. W. (1977). Belief in the Paranormal Scale: An objective instrument to measure belief in magical phenomena and causes.JSAS, Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 7: 100 (MS. 1577).Google Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds.) (1982).Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kurfiss, J. G. (1988).Critical thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  16. Lord, C. G., Ross, L. and Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitute polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Teaching of thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics. In D. F. Halpern (ed.),Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics (pp. 95–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. McMillan, J. H. (1987). Enhancing college students' critical thinking: A review of studies.Research in Higher Education 26: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McPeck, J. E. (1981).Critical Thinking and Education. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  20. Minstrell, J. A. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. B. Resnick and L. E. Klopfer (eds.),Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research (pp. 129–149). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, J. V., Jr. (ed.) (1985).The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of the University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
  22. Myers, D. G. (1983).Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Nisbett, R. E. and Ross, L. (1980).Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Resnick, L. B. (1987).Education and Learning to Think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rosenthal, R., and Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies.Behavioral and Brain Science 2: 377–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ross, L., and Anderson, C. A. (1982). Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.),Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (pp. 129–152). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Shore, L. A. (1990). Skepticism in the light of scientific literacy.Skeptical Inquirer 15: 3–12.Google Scholar
  28. Siegel, H. (1988).Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Singer, B., and Benassi, V. A. (1981). Occult beliefs.American Scientist 69: 49–55.Google Scholar
  30. Snyder, M. (1981). Seek, and ye shall find: Testing hypotheses about other people. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, and M. P. Zanna (eds.)The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In L. Berkowitz (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 18 (pp. 248–306). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Watson, G., and Glaser, E. M. (1980).The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Cleveland: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  33. Zechmeister, E. B., and Johnson, J. E. (1992).Critical Thinking: A Functional Approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  34. Zusne, L., and Jones, W. H. (1989).Anomalistic Psychology: Study of Magical Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dean Morier
    • 1
  • David Keeports
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMills CollegeOakland

Personalised recommendations