Collaborative Research: Critical Thinking for Civic Thinking in Science

（99）本项目通过明确关注批判性思维和公民思维之间的关系，解决了培养具有科学素养的公民的任务。目标受众是非科学专业的学生，他们学习科学入门课程、地质学和生物学。这项合作工作有助于确定促进学生在这些领域学习的教学实践，涉及来自四个机构的教师，并建立在最初由卡内基教学与学习奖学金学院支持的试点研究的基础上。该项目分两个阶段实施。首先，参与的教师将批判性思维与公民思维（CT）2练习结合到他们的课程中。这些练习包括开放式的场景，要求学生运用科学推理并制定公民行动计划。它们构成了一个具有基本科学基础的公民问题（例如人类健康和饮用水质量）。该项目的第二阶段包括确定和测试特定教学干预措施的相对有效性的实验设计。参与培训的教师将于2007年召开暑期培训会议，讨论第一阶段的成果，并确定提高学生学习能力的做法。他们将设计一个实验方案来测试在提高学生学习方面最显著的独立变量（或多个变量）。随后的分析将在2007-2008学年进行。向参与机构的其他STEM教师提供小额赠款，用于将教学方法扩展到其他学科。智力优势：正在进行分析，以确定批判性和公民思维技能是倾向于同时发展还是独立发展。四所院校之间的合作允许使用共同的评估措施来比较和对比多个院校学生的反应。从历史上看，大多数对特定学生学习成果感兴趣的机构要么试图在自己的机构背景下定义和衡量这些成果，要么使用国家标准化考试，这些考试不容易与特定课程或教学干预联系起来。正在创建的实验设计是基于参与的教师的合作、分析和对课堂上使用的实际教学实践的反思。更广泛的影响：对于参与的学生来说，参与（CT）2练习向他们介绍了在解决开放式的现实世界问题时科学推理和怀疑的严谨性。这些练习鼓励学生看到实践的必要性和科学方法的价值。对于教师来说，暑期学院为参与的教师提供了一个机会，让他们根据学生学习的直接证据来反思自己的教学实践。对于教育研究人员来说，在机构间的背景下进行一项对照实验，将学生批判性思维能力和公民思维能力的提高联系起来，有助于理解有效的教学实践，并提出科学教学改革的建议。

Interdisciplinary (99)This project addresses the task of generating a scientifically literate citizenry by paying explicit attention to the relationship between critical thinking and civic thinking. The target audience is non-science majors taking introductory science courses, geology and biology. This collaborative work helps identify the pedagogical practices that advance student learning in these areas, involves faculty from four institutions, and builds on a pilot study that was initially supported by the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. The project is being implemented in two stages. First, participating instructors incorporate Critical Thinking for Civic Thinking (CT)2 exercises in their courses. These exercises consist of open-ended scenarios that require students to apply scientific reasoning and develop a civic action plan. They pose a civic problem that has an essentially science base (e.g. Human Health and the Quality of Drinking Water). The second stage of this project consists of an experimental design that identifies and tests the relative effectiveness of specific pedagogical interventions. Participating faculty are meeting for a summer institute in 2007 to discuss the results from the first-stage and to identify the practices that enhance student learning. They will devise an experimental protocol to test what appears to be the most salient independent variable (or variables) in improving student learning. The subsequent analysis will be carried out in the 2007-2008 academic year. Small grants to additional STEM faculty at the participating institutions are being used to expand the pedagogical approach to other disciplines. Intellectual Merit: Analysis is being conducted to determine if critical and civic thinking skills tend to develop concurrently or independently among beginning science students. The collaboration between four institutions permits the use of common assessment measures to compare and contrast student responses across multiple institutions. Historically, most institutions interested in specific student learning outcomes either have tried to define and measure them within their own institutional context or have used nationally standardized exams that can not be easily connected to specific curricula or pedagogical interventions. The experimental design being created is based on the participating faculty's collaboration, analysis, and reflection upon the actual pedagogical practices that are used in their classrooms. Broader Impacts: For participating students, engagement with (CT)2 exercises introduces them to the rigors of scientific reasoning and skepticism in addressing open-ended, real world problems. The exercises encourage students to see the practical necessities and value of the scientific method. For faculty, the summer academy serves as an opportunity for the participating instructors to reflect on their teaching practice in light of direct evidence of student learning. For educational researchers, a controlled experiment within an inter-institutional context that links improvements in student's abilities in critical thinking and civic thinking contributes to the understanding of effective teaching practices and suggests reforms in the teaching of science.