The Homestake DUSEL: Realizing the Promise

A Capstone Project

Prepared by:

K. Mark Northrup

For:

Dr. Rodney Rice IS 498

Fall Semester 2008

10 December, 2008

Table of Contents

Table of Contents............................................................................................................. i

Abstract ............................................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................iii

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose........................................................................................................................... 2

Background ..................................................................................................................... 2

Math and Science Partnerships (MSP’s)...................................................................... 4

Ensuring Partnerships Work......................................................................................... 6

Local Partnerships..................................................................................................... 8

The Role of the DUSEL/SUSEL ................................................................................. 10

The Role of Local Schools ......................................................................................... 10

The Local Challenge .................................................................................................. 12

Method .......................................................................................................................... 14

Data............................................................................................................................... 17

Discussion..................................................................................................................... 22

Conclusions................................................................................................................... 23

Works Cited................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix A – The Survey.............................................................................................. 31

Appendix B – Survey Scoring Matrix ............................................................................. 37

i

Abstract

The proposed Homestake underground laboratory has been widely touted to have a

tremendous potential to improve STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math)

education in the Black Hills region. This research looked at that hope in light of larger

cultural factors affecting science literacy and the public understanding of science. In a

survey of two groups of undergraduates at the South Dakota School of Mines and

Technology (SDSM&T) in Rapid City, South Dakota, a positive correlation was found

between “Dogmatism” (i.e. inflexibility of belief) and a lack of support of “Science

Research and Education” that might co-vary with other deeply-held, predominantly

religious, beliefs. Devoting scarce resources to raising scores on standardized

mathematics and science tests in hopes of producing a scientifically literate nation,

capable of competing in a global scientific and technological economy–without

addressing the fundamental objections of substantial numbers of Americans to the

nature of, and findings of, science–may not be enough.

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to gratefully acknowledge the following people for their generous inputs

of time and insight into this research: Dr. Rodney P. Rice, Professor Sharon Kirkpatrick-

Sanchez, Mr. Mark Farrand, Dr. Colin Paterson, Dr. Randall Benson, Dr. Jeff McGough,

Dr. Andy Johnson, Dr. Sidney Goss, and Dr. Robert (Bob) Altemeyer. Also of help was

Mr. Steve Almieda of the South Dakota Department of Labor; his familiarity with the

needs of area employers for a mathematically and scientifically literate workforce was of

great value. Their support and encouragement have added immeasurably to this

research. As always, any errors and shortcomings in this research or the conclusions

drawn from it rest entirely with this author.

iii

Introduction

In July 2007, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds announced that the former

Homestake Gold Mine in Lead, South Dakota had been chosen by the National Science

Foundation (NSF) as the site for a new Deep Underground Science and Engineering

Laboratory (DUSEL). By the time of that announcement, South Dakota had already

invested considerable state and private money in repurposing the former mine to serve

as a science laboratory. Taxpayer funds were also expended in lobbying the NSF, and

the scientific community generally, to promote the former mine as the ideal site. The

DUSEL is expected to conduct research in cosmology (the origin and fate of the

universe), fundamental particle physics (protons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.), geology and

geophysics (how the earth and the materials it is made of came to be and how it has

changed throughout Earth’s history), and the nature and origin of microscopic life found

deep underground.

The Governor, in persuading legislators and the public to make the investment in the

mine’s rehabilitation, in addition to the obvious economic benefits, frequently touted the

benefits of having such a facility for education, particularly science education. The

facility is currently known as the Sanford Underground Science and Engineering

Laboratory (SUSEL or the Sanford Lab), named for philanthropist and credit card and

banking billionaire T. Denny Sanford. Of the $70 million donated by Sanford, $20 million

has been earmarked for the creation of the Sanford Center for Science Education.

1

Purpose

Basic scientific research is often conducted at public expense. Justifying this

expense to citizens can be difficult when some feel the methods and results of science

to be too mechanistic; leaving no room for personal faith, values, and meaning–things

many feel make America great. Others feel that the U.S.A.’s position as a world leader,

in economics, politics, and science critically depends on the nation remaining true to its

traditions of open debate and free inquiry and believe not funding research that will

certainly be pursued by other nations would be to forfeit that leadership.

There have been successful partnerships between large laboratories and schools

and communities before, notably FermiLab in Batavia, Illinois. This research will

propose to answer the questions of:

• What will it take, on the part of the laboratory, for a successful partnership with

local schools and communities?

• What will it take, on the part of local schools and communities, for a successful

partnership with the laboratory?

• To what extent will Black Hills residents understanding of, and attitudes towards,

science, both its methods and findings, affect the success of any such

partnerships?

Background

Science and science education in the United States is at a crossroads. A study

published in the 11 August, 2006 issue of the journal Science revealed that, out of 32

European countries and Japan, America ranked virtually at the bottom of the list in the

2

percentage of their citizens that accept biological evolution as the driving force behind

the diversity of life on Earth. At the top of the list were the northern European countries,

Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden respectively. The only country surveyed that is less

accepting of the fact of biological evolution than the United States is also the only

majority Muslim country in the survey, Turkey; which according to the online CIA World

Fact Book, is 99.8% Sunni Muslim (Miller, Scott and Okamoto). A recent story in the

journal Science highlights another effect of the decline of U.S. science: of all the Ph.D.’s

awarded in the sciences from 2004 to 2006 by U.S. universities; the top two sources of

the undergraduate degrees for the new Ph.D.’s were Chinese universities (Mervis "U.S.

GRADUATE TRAINING: Top Ph.D. Feeder Schools Are Now Chinese").

The term “science literacy” occurs frequently in this context, but what exactly is it?

Project 2061, a science education initiative of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS), defines science literacy, in part, to “…include being

familiar with the natural world and respecting its unity; being aware of some of the

important ways in which mathematics, technology, and the sciences depend upon one

another; understanding some of the key concepts and principles of science; having a

capacity for scientific ways of thinking; knowing that science, mathematics, and

technology are human enterprises, and knowing what that implies about their strengths

and limitations; and being able to use scientific knowledge and ways of thinking for

personal and social purposes” ("SFAA: Introduction"). The Organisation [sic] for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines scientific literacy for the

public as “…the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw

3

evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the

natural world and the changes made to it through human activity” ("PISA 2003" 133).

According to the National Science Board (NSB) the United States scores particularly

low in two areas of science literacy, acceptance of the birth of the cosmos in a “Big

Bang” and the common ancestry of humans with other forms of life, i.e. biological

evolution ("Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 Volume 1" 7-19). This gap does

not seem to be merely a matter of people not knowing about the science because when

the questions are phrased along the lines of “according to evolutionary theory, man and

apes share a common ancestor” 74% of respondents answered correctly. When the

preamble is omitted, as in “man and apes share a common ancestor,” agreement drops

to 42%. A similar effect is seen for questions regarding the Big Bang. What is going on?

The NSB surmises that the difference in the responses is attributable to religious beliefs

that cause people to reject sound scientific explanations of certain aspects of nature,

despite some familiarity with the scientific explanations ("Science and Engineering

Indicators 2008 Volume 1" 7-20).

Math and Science Partnerships (MSP’s)

In 1981, the Secretary of Education under President Reagan brought together a

“blue ribbon” panel of experts in education to determine how bad the problems were

and what might be done to remedy them. The result of their work was released in 1983

and was called A Nation at Risk (Gardner et al.). This report provided the blueprint for

nearly all educational reform for the last quarter-century including the reliance on

standardized tests to measure student achievement. The direct descendant of A Nation

at Risk is, undoubtedly, President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

4

Passed in 2001, NCLB was itself a revamping of a 1994 piece of legislation called

Goals 2000 (Franciosi 198-99).

One of the major points of A Nation at Risk was the negative effect of the decline in

all aspects of education on economic productivity and national security. In the quarter of

a century since that report came out, there has been a steady growth in Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) “Education and Outreach” (E&O) in the

area of k-12 education (though the NSB surveys of science literacy do not seem to

indicate that much headway is being made). Some partnerships are between public

schools and private industry, especially those industries that critically depend on math,

science, and technology (Mervis "EDUCATION"). Of the greatest relevance to the

DUSEL will be the joint NSF/U.S. Department of Education (USDoE) program of MSP’s

(USDoE "U.S. Dept. of Ed. MSP's; NSF "NSF MSP's Overview"). The USDoE

partnership efforts are focused on k-12 schools with their mandate being to support

“partnerships between the mathematics, science, and/or engineering faculty of

institutions of higher education and high-need school districts.” (USDoE "MSP

Overview"). As of this writing, there is only one active USDoE MSP in the state of South

Dakota, based in the eastern part of the state and is focused on professional

development of teachers (Popham).

The National Science Foundation’s MSP efforts, began in 2002, closely parallel

those of the Department of Education’s efforts, and like the USDoE, the “NSF awards

competitive, merit-based grants to teams composed of institutions of higher education,

local K-12 school systems, and their supporting partners.” (NSF "NSF MSP's

Overview"). Some of the “supporting partners,” in addition to institutions of higher

5

learning and government labs, include such STEM intensive businesses as Pfizer, Ford

Motor Company; Texas Instruments, Xerox, GlaxoSmithKline, International Business

Machines Corporation; Merck & Company, and Intel, just to name a few (NSF "MSP

Partners").

Ensuring Partnerships Work

One frequently reported complaint of teachers of math and science at the middle

and high school level is a lack of preparation time and, particularly for science teachers,

difficulty in finding multiple ways of encouraging “scientific habits of mind” among their

students (Williams et al. 57). In evaluating student outcomes, it was also found that

“demographic variables are highly correlated with achievement”1 (Williams et al. 61).

Another interesting observation made by Williams et al. was that for those schools

participating in the NSF-sponsored MSP “the results were mixed: elementary schools

performed better than predicted, while middle schools and high schools

underperformed.” (61). There was however, no suggestion as to why that is the case,

and is perhaps an area needing further research.

Other research emphasizes the need for K-12 teachers to take ownership of the

programs in their classrooms, revealing that “[t]eachers knew which units of instruction

needed upgrades, and they were also aware of which areas in which they felt weak.

The shift [in ownership] resulted in a substantial increase in interactions among the

graduate students in the project, the teachers, and the supervising university faculty

members” (Tomanek 29). By pooling the experience and insights of educators from 1 The demographic factors cited by Williams et al. “…include: prior PSSA math and reading scaled scores (from 1998 through 2003), the trends of change in those scores, the percentage of students who are in low income families, the percentage of minority students, attendance and graduation rates, the geographic locale (urban, rural, etc.), and the average educational attainment of adults in the community.”

6

across the country, it is hoped that they will not have to “reinvent the wheel” with each

new class in finding how to reach diverse groups of students.

In January 2007, the NSF released a major report analyzing the nation-wide impact

of the first four years of its MSP efforts (NSF "MSP National Impact Report"). During

that time, much of NSF’s efforts went to increasing teacher quality and preparedness.

The NSF’s partners in higher education reported an increase in efforts in recruiting new,

qualified teachers of science and mathematics. In a section of the report called

“Increased Quantities of New Mathematics and Science Teachers,” they report that

during one reporting period, 7,500 university/college students were enrolled in “pre-

service” programs that were receiving NSF support ("MSP National Impact Report" 5).

What is not said in the report is if this is actually an increase over previous years and if

so, by how much. The USDoE/NSF partnership programs nationwide rely heavily on

quantitative methods to evaluate the effectiveness of current programs and to design

future ones. For students this means still more standardized tests. In terms of student

outcomes, the National Impact Report reported year to year gains, notably among

elementary students.

One thing that any partnership must keep in mind during the initial phases is to keep

their goals modest (St. John et al. 40). As in a marriage, if one partner expects both

people to work outside the home, making roughly equal contributions the couple’s

economic welfare and the other partner expects to be a full-time, stay-at-home parent,

trouble will certainly ensue. Likewise, in educational partnerships, the responsibilities

and expectations for all must be clearly spelled out and agreed upon (Clifford et al. 10).

Another frequent pitfall of partnerships, something that could perhaps be called the

7

“bandwagon effect,” is seen when a partnership is coalescing, and is understandably

perceived as good idea, and a number of community-minded organizations want to get

in on the action (11-12).

Local Partnerships

In the Black Hills area, the one active NSF-funded MSP is the PRIME project, which

stands for “Promoting Reflective Inquiry in Mathematics Education.” PRIME is a five-

year effort to improve the mathematics skills of students attending Rapid City’s 15

elementary schools, five middle schools, and the three high schools in partnership with

Black Hills State University (BHSU) in Spearfish. As the Rapid City Area School (RCAS)

district has the largest population of Native Americans in the state that are not on

reservations, the program also does outreach to Native American students (Parry). The

project has undertaken five main strategies:

• graduate-level coursework for teachers throughout the school district

• building-based classroom coaching

• principal training

• parent nights

• inquiry-oriented instructional materials (Sayler and Apaza 3).

The results of the PRIME project appear ambiguous at best when compared to

scores on the same assessment tests state-wide (9). The results for Native American

students are even less encouraging, because despite an initial closing of the gap in the

test scores of non-Native American and Native American students in the first year of the

project, the gap widened in subsequent years. The disheartening numbers are

exacerbated by consistent drops in enrollment between the 9th and 10th grades,

8

primarily thought to be due to the drop out rate of Native American students (11, 12).

The Prime project also took a “snapshot” of elementary and secondary students’

attitude about math in 2006. The items looked at included learning style (doing vs.

listening), enjoyment vs. stress, and how motivated the students are in learning math.

The authors evaluating the program state that they “await additional data over the

coming year to make comparisons and engage in more thorough analyses.” (21-23).

Education and outreach centered on the Homestake DUSEL will be spearheaded by

the Center for the Advancement of Mathematics and Science Education (CAMSE) at

BHSU.

According to the CAMSE website, the goals are:

• “Professional development opportunities in content, pedagogy, and

leadership.

• Enriching experiences for K-12 students.

• Evaluation and dissemination of instructional materials.

• Research on the teaching and learning of mathematics and science.

• Helping to recruit and prepare the next generation of teachers.” (CAMSE

"What is CAMSE?")

Most of CAMSE’s efforts are focused on teachers, and through them, the students. The

Center did sponsor a series of public lectures highlighting the kinds of research planned

for the DUSEL during the spring and fall of 2008, and these ought to continue to be a

cornerstone of their larger work of community-wide education and outreach (CAMSE

"Deep Science for Everyone").

9

The Role of the DUSEL/SUSEL

Through the Sanford Center for Science Education, to be located on the campus of

the Homestake Lab, substantial outreach activities are planned. A museum, summer

camps, research internships for both qualified high school and undergraduate students,

and distance learning for students and other interested citizens are all planned for

(SUSEL). Since the spring of 2008, CAMSE has been conducting a search for a director

of the Sanford Center for Science Education. As of mid-September 2008, three

candidates have been interviewed but no choice has been announced. One large

government lab with an extremely successful E&O program is Fermilab National

Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, IL ("Fermilab"). Not only does Fermilab engage in

“traditional” education and outreach to students and teachers, but the lab also serves as

a center of intellectual and cultural life for the surrounding community ("Fermilab

Cultural Events"). While it may be overly optimistic to expect the DUSEL/SUSEL to

achieve some sort of intellectual and cultural renaissance, surely the effort is worth

making.

The Role of Local Schools

Teachers “on the ground” know where they need the most expert assistance. Crucial

to this will be ensuring that teachers have adequate preparation time and access to the

expertise of the research scientists working at the lab. Even more important, and

according to research done elsewhere, more difficult, will be convincing the parents that

there is even a problem that needs to be fixed (Kadlec, Friedman and Ott). This will

require that schools “court” the parents to draw them in and increase their

10

understanding of, and enthusiasm for, math and science. Without the support of the

parents in the home, outreach efforts will not get the reinforcement they need to really

sink in. Teachers must have the intellectual honesty to answer students’ questions

about the deep truths of science and not “gloss over” how they may impact their

understanding of the world.

A short article in the Fall 2007 issue of the journal Issues in Science & Technology

by Gerald Wheeler, “Science Education for Parents,” notes that “Before we can fix the

problem, however, we have to do a much better job of explaining what is actually

broken” (8). He illustrates this point by noting that 57% of parents of elementary school

children and 70% of high school parents approve of the level of science education their

children are receiving (8). Parental attitudes regarding the need to improve math and

science education need much improvement. The title of another 2007 report says it all:

“Important, but Not for Me.” The report, a summary of a ten-year project to improve

math and science education in the Kansas City region, involved schools in Kansas and

Missouri. While employers were very concerned about their ability to find minimally

qualified workers, parents were relatively unconcerned with the implications of

maintaining the status quo. Parents that were interviewed for the study agreed, in

general, that students in the United States were “far behind other countries” in terms of

their math and science skills and that those students that had such skills would have an

advantage compared to students that lacked those skills. Paradoxically, parents were

very satisfied with the jobs their child’s school was doing (Kadlec, Friedman and Ott 8).

11

The Local Challenge

Part of the impetus for this Capstone project came from the opening of The Arts and

Science Center at the Rapid City YMCA (YMCA ASC) in 2005. Initially, staff at the

YMCA hoped to get students and faculty from the South Dakota School of Mines and

Technology (SDSM&T) in Rapid City involved and the SDSM&T student Paleontology

Club was especially enthused about the Center as they were to have a room

showcasing dinosaurs. When plans for the room were discussed though, it turned out

that the room was to consist of little more than colorful murals showing dinosaurs and

people, together. As it was, a conservative, home-schooling, Christian mother was a

primary financial benefactor of the Center and refused to have anything showing

dinosaurs (or people) in their proper geological and evolutionary context. The student

Paleontology Club refused to have anything to do with such an intellectually dishonest

enterprise and the faculty of SDSM&T likewise has had nothing to do with the Arts and

"Science" Center since this issue came to light (McGough "Comment; Personal

Interview). From first hand experience, this author also notes that the YMCA ASC also

has an astronomy, or “outer space,” room that is completely devoid of any hint of the

scale, in both time and space, of the cosmos.

One tool that has been successfully used in detangling why people adopt the belief

commitments that they do is the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Scores on

standardized tests assessing where one falls in this model correlate with an individual’s

potential to have their world-view altered by evidence and science rather than non-

12

scientific or pseudoscientific constructs2 (Borderlands 115). The personality traits

included in the FFM are:

• Openness to Experience: curious, creative, non-dogmatic

• Conscientiousness: self-disciplined, seeking to avoid error

• Extroversion: outgoing, assertive

• Agreeableness: generous, easygoing

• Neuroticism: anxious, critical of self and others (Berger 581)

The above traits are not binary qualities, but are rather the ends of a continuum on

which individuals can fall. Studies have found that when eminent scientists are rated by

their peers, family, and friends, they consistently score high in “Openness to

Experience.” (Borderlands 115). “Openness to Experience” means that they do not

reject seemingly radical new ideas out of hand. “Conscientiousness” balances

“Openness to Experience” by talking all new ideas in hand and scrupulously weighs

them according the merits of the evidence and logic used to support them. Delving

further into the differences and similarities between an evidence-based, scientific world-

view and one that is governed by pseudo-scientific or supernaturalistic frameworks, the

Five-Factor Model of personality can be used to shed light on the likelihood that a

persons’ understanding of the world will be dominated by religious commitments or not

(How We Believe 82).

2 Constructs: statements that are not subject to objective verification, observation, testing, or falsification

13

Method

In light of the hopes and plans for the DUSEL/SUSEL Education and Outreach

(E&O) programs, the chain of events at the YMCA Arts and Science Center related

above raises legitimate questions of whether or not similar attitudes are present among

public school students and their parents and if so, to what extent. The presence of such

attitudes in the community may be of interest to those creating and coordinating the

E&O and partnership efforts related to the DUSEL.

A prudent question to ask is, “To what degree might other, mainly religious, belief

commitments affect the hopes for the SUSEL/DUSEL as a consciousness-raising force

for math and science education?” The Five-Factor Model, as has already been

mentioned, has already been documented to correlate strongly with the degree of

religious commitment and so could form part of the basis for a survey instrument, to be

given to students at the local public high schools, and their parents, to gauge

community attitudes.

Dr. Robert (Bob) Altemeyer, a psychology professor at the University of Manitoba,

has studied authoritarian, dogmatic personalities for over 40 years. The reason

Altemeyer’s work is relevant to this thesis is best explained in his own words, “Although

one can find dogmatic scientists, feminists, environmentalists, and so on, dogmatism

seems to arise most often in religious matters….persons who said their basic outlook

was religious proved much more dogmatic than those who built their lives around

socialism, capitalism, a personal philosophy—or anything else….the easiest way to find

dogmatic attitudes is to bring up religion” (Altemeyer 714-15).

14

Using Altemeyer’s 2004 Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale as a jumping off

point a survey instrument was created (see Appendix A) that contained questions

assessing dogmatism, and the antithesis of dogmatism, openness/tolerance for

ambiguity (from the FFM), and attitudes towards science education and research

(Altemeyer and Hunsberger). The instrument totaled 18 questions, six relating to

dogmatism, eight assessing attitudes towards science, and four touching on tolerance

for ambiguity/openness. The questions were to be answered on a five-point Likert scale

with “Strong Agreement” being a “5”, and “Strong Disagreement” being a “1.” The

wording of half of the questions was such that an answer of a “5” would indicate a lack

of dogmatism (D), a tolerance for ambiguity/openness (T/O), and support for science

education and research (SR&E); these questions were to be contra-scored. The other

half were written to opposite specifications with a “1” (“Strong Disagreement”), indicating

a lack of dogmatism (D), a tolerance for ambiguity/openness (T/O), and support for

science education and research (SR&E). The instrument was scored in such a way that

a high individual score on the T/O questions indicate a lack of tolerance/openness.

Likewise, a high individual score in the SR&E questions indicates a lack of support for

science research and education (especially in areas that might conflict with deeply-held

religious beliefs). This scoring scheme made doing the statistics easier because high

numbers for “dogmatism,” would correlate with high numbers in the other areas.

Several attempts were made to get the survey instrument into the hands of high

school students and their parents in Rapid City. These attempts were however,

unsuccessful, with the given reasons being the sheer number of requests received by

school administrators for access to their students for tests, surveys, and other forms of

15

“data-mining.” As a rough analog to high school students, it was decided that the

instrument would be given to two classes of SDSM&T students composed

predominantly of freshmen and sophomores with a variety of majors. The two classes

were Interdisciplinary Sciences (IS) 110–Explorations and General Engineering (GE)

130–Intro to Engineering. GE 130 is a required course for all SDSM&T students whose

major has the word “engineering” in it. IS 110 is required of all other students, not only

those who plan to pursue physics, chemistry, or geology, but for those that are in the

pre-health or pre-law track.

Admittedly, this is not an ideal sample because these were students in a science

and engineering school, and there is obviously some self-selection bias in the sample

population. Nevertheless, it was hoped that, being freshmen and sophomores, they had

not yet fully undergone the “consciousness-raising” and broadening of perspective that

generally occurs as part of an undergraduate education. If they turned out to be

predominantly non-dogmatic and pro-science, as might be expected because of the

aforementioned self-selection bias, that could be considered a “neutral” result, as there

could or could not still be a large number of students at the high school level that were

“turned off” of science, math, or engineering because of conflicts with other beliefs. If

however, students at SDSM&T are dogmatic and think that science is no more valid

than other “ways of knowing,” that may be cause for concern. As citizens in a

democracy, part of developing “scientific habits of mind” are the willingness alter one’s

conclusions in the face of new evidence and to apply the empirical methods of science

to a broad range of subjects and not keep such “habits of mind” confined to the lecture

hall or laboratory.

16

Data

The specific hypothesis being tested (H0) with this survey is that there is a positive

correlation between Dogmatism, a lack of Tolerance for Ambiguity/Openness to

Experience, and a lack of support for Science Education and Research, especially into

the kind of fundamental questions that might conflict with the claims of strongly-held,

non-scientific constructs, like religion.

The two classes had a combined total of 161 students and the respective instructors

handed out the surveys to their classes. Completing the survey was not required,

although the instructors were kind enough to offer a small amount of extra credit to

those students that returned a completed survey. Of the 161 surveys that went out, 67

were returned yielding an n═67 for the data. Again, in the statistics that follow, the lower

the score on the “Dogmatism” scale, the less “dogmatic” the respondent, the lower the

score on the “Tolerance/Openness” scale the higher their “tolerance for ambiguity,” and

the lower the score on the “SR&E” scale, the less resistant they are to scientific

research into uncomfortable questions (i.e. evolution, big bang cosmology, etc.).3

The GE 130 group was composed of 31 males and 12 females. The median age of

the GE 130 students was 18 years with a mean of 19.5 years. The IS 110 group was

evenly split, with 12 males and 12 females. The median age of the IS 110 group as a

whole was 19 years with a mean of 22 years. Of the 67 total students, 53 had at least

one parent with at least 2 years of college, with 22 having at least one parent with four

or more years of college. Also, 30 of the 67 students expressed intent to pursue

graduate education. 3 The text used for the statistical analyses (confidence intervals, etc.) was: Larson, Ron, and Betsy Farber. Elementary Statistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2003.

17

Figures 1 through 6 (below) show the frequency distribution of the scores on each of

the axes tested. The horizontal axis shows the numerical score on for the respective

trait, i.e. “Dogmatism,” (lack of) “Tolerance/Openness,” or (lack of) support for “Science

Research and Education.’ In Figure 1, the endpoints of the horizontal axis are 7 at the

low end and 30 at the high end; this indicates that no one scored less than a 7 or

greater than a 30, though such scores were indeed possible, and the same applies to

the horizontal axes of the rest of Figures 2 through 6. The vertical axis shows the

number of respondents that got that particular score. With respect to the color of the

bars, green indicates lower levels of “Dogmatism”, higher levels of Tolerance/

Openness, and more apparent support for Science Research and Education (see

Appendix B). Yellow bars represent moderate levels of those qualities and red bars

signify high levels of “Dogmatism,” a lack of “Tolerance/Openness” (or if you will,

“Intolerance/Close-Mindedness”), and relatively high resistance to “Science Research

and Education.”

Note that the “Dogmatism” scores for the two classes (Figures 1 & 2) sort

themselves out differently from each other. The scores for the GS 130 group are

vaguely normally distributed, while the IS 110 scores tended towards the lower end of

the “Dogmatism” scale (see Appendix B). For the “Tolerance/Openness” axis (Figures 3

& 4), the GS 130 student’s scores were even more strongly normally distributed and the

scores for the IS 110 cohorts were left skewed, indicating a higher tolerance for

ambiguity and/or openness to experience. For the GS 130 group, the scores in the area

of support of science education and research (Figure 5) were clustered towards the

center with the IS 110 group’s scores (Figure 6) clustering in the low, middle, and high

18

ranges with no consistent pattern emerging in this sample, though the possibility that

patterns might emerge with a much larger sample can not be ruled out.

GE 130 F-Dist "Dogmatism"

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30Scores

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 1

IS 110 F-Dist "Dogmatism"

00.5

11.5

2

2.53

3.54

4.5

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30Scores

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 2

GE 130 "T/O" F-Dist

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Scores

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 3

19

IS 110 "T/O" F-Dist

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Scores

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 4

GE 130 Science Research & Education F-Dist

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30Scores

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 5

IS 110 Science Research & Education F-Dist

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Scores

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 6

20

For GE 130 the sample size was 43 (n =43). For that sample size, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient for an α of 0.05 is ≈ 0.300 and for an α of 0.01 is ≈ 0.390.

GE 130 Correlation Coefficient (r ) for Dogmatism and SR&E: 0.38235GE 130 Correlation Coefficient (r ) for Neg T/O and SR&E: 0.21420

0.52582GE 130 Correlation Coefficient (r ) for Dogmatism and Neg T/O:

Table 1

0.794880.585820.41419

For IS 110 the sample size was 24 (n =24). For that sample size, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient for an α of 0.05 is ≈ 0.404 and for an α of 0.01 is ≈ 0.515.

IS 110 Correlation Coefficient (r ) for Dogmatism and Neg T/O:IS 110 Correlation Coefficient (r ) for Dogmatism and SR&E:

IS 110 Correlation Coefficient (r ) for Neg T/O and SR&E:

Table 2

In statistics, “correlation coefficients” are always between -1 and 1. For example, the

correlation coefficient for being male and being pregnant (transgendered individuals and

future medical breakthroughs excepted) will be, effectively speaking, -1; being born

anatomically male and the ability to become pregnant are, for all intents and purposes,

mutually exclusive. Likewise, the correlation coefficient between general health and the

amount of moderate exercise one gets will likely be between 0 and 1 as how much

exercise one gets does have a positive effect on general health, but there are also other

variables to consider, like genes and diet. The meaning of, for instance, “α=0.01” is that

for a given sample size, or “n,” the probability that the calculated correlation coefficient

is due to chance is 1 out of 100, or there is a 1% chance that the correlation is strictly

accidental.

Referring to Tables 1 and 2, for both classes, there is a strong positive correlation at

the 0.01 level of confidence (α=0.01) between Dogmatism and a lack of

Openness/Tolerance for Ambiguity. For the GE 130 students, there was a positive

correlation between Dogmatism and lack of support for SR&E at the 0.05 level of

confidence (α=0.01). A lack of support for SR&E did not show a positive correlation to a

21

lack of Openness/Tolerance for Ambiguity. The IS 110 group showed positive

correlations between a lack of support for SR&E and both Dogmatism (α = 0.01) and a

lack of Openness/Tolerance for Ambiguity (α = 0.05).

When the two classes were examined together (Table 3), the correlations between

the three axes tested exceed the 0.05 level of confidence (i.e. there is less than a 5%

chance that the observed correlation was accidental, but still greater than a 1% chance

that it is accidental), with the correlations between dogmatism and a lack of T/O and a

lack of support for SR&E exceeding the 0.01 confidence level.

For an n of 67, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient for an α of 0.05 is ≈ 0.240 and for an α of 0.01 is ≈ 0.313.

Total Correlation Coefficient (r ) for Neg T/O and lack of support for SR&E: 0.28205

Total Correlation Coefficient (r ) for Dogmatism and Neg T/O: 0.65160Total Correlation Coefficient (r ) for Dogmatism and lack of support for SR&E: 0.42275

Table 3

Discussion

The survey data confirm, at least in part, the null hypothesis. The part of HO that has

been confirmed, is that in each class (GE 130 and IS 110) examined separately, and as

a whole, there does appear to be a positive correlation between high levels of

“Dogmatism” and low levels of “Tolerance/Openness” (or put another way, higher levels

of “Dogmatism” and higher levels of “Intolerance/Close-Mindedness”). Also confirmed,

for each class separately and as a whole, is that higher levels of “Dogmatism” are also

correlated with higher levels of resistance to “Science Research and Education.”

Additionally, when the survey data for the two classes was combined, a positive (though

22

only weakly so) correlation between a lack of “Tolerance/Openness” and a similar lack

of support for “Science Research and Education” was found. The part of the research

hypothesis that must be rejected (for now), when each class (GE 130 and IS 110) was

examined separately, is the existence of a positive correlation between a lack of

“Tolerance/Openness” and a corresponding lack of support for “Science Education and

Research.” Further assessments with larger sample sizes will undoubtedly yield better

data.

While written feedback from survey respondents was not solicited (though in

hindsight, it might have been a good idea), this researcher did receive two interesting

pieces of written feedback from respondents. One student, a 30 year-old female on the

IS pre-med/pre-health track noted that, in response to survey question 12 (see

Appendix A), that while she was raised with an absolute certainty in the truth of the faith

she was brought up in, education and general life experience led her to question that

certainty. Another respondent, aged 58 and also female, wondered if it was a

coincidence that there was a religious billboard directly across the street from the

SDSM&T campus and asked how one might expect a different sample population would

respond to the survey.

Conclusions

Increasing student proficiency in math and science is certainly a readily quantifiable

goal, but what larger ends will that achieve? For example, the stated goals of one large

partnership program are:

23

1) Increased mathematics and science learning for all students, leading both to

improvements in overall performance and elimination of gaps among subgroups

of students.

2) Increased enrollment and successful completion of students in advanced

mathematics and science courses, including elimination of differences in course-

taking/completion patterns by subgroups of students.

3) Increased student entry into and successful completion of college/university

programs for mathematics, science, technology, and mathematics or science

teaching.

4) Increased numbers of well-prepared preK-12 mathematics and science teachers

deliveringhigh-quality instruction in a well-aligned and supported program.

5) Increased numbers of pre-service mathematics and science teachers entering

the profession well prepared to deliver high-quality standards-based

instruction.(St. John et al.)

These objectives, while an important component to addressing the problem of the

intellectual decline of future generations of Americans resulting in an inability to

successfully compete in a global economy and culture, may be too small and do little to

prevent the scenario painted so vividly by the late Carl Sagan in his 1996 book Demon-

Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or

grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a service and

information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing

industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome

24

technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one

representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when

the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or

knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our

crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical

faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good

and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into

superstition and darkness” (25).

By focusing only on test scores, without even attempting to gain an understanding of

what facilitates or prevents the development of “scientific habits of mind,” and without

making it clear how such habits can empower students in all areas of their lives, the

target will likely continue to be missed. An essential part of education, especially as

students mature, is to expose them to new ideas, and new, perhaps even better, ways

to think about and cognitively process information, even ideas and information that they,

or their parents, may find unsettling or disagree with.

The significance of the survey data gathered is that it may be advisable to for those

involved in education and outreach in connection with the Sanford Lab to be aware that

some students (or their parents) might object to a guest lecturer at their school talking

about the evolution of life deep underground or about the birth of the universe in a “big

bang.” Education, whether about math, science, art, literature, history, or any other

subject, is not only about “laying out the facts,” it is also meant to expand one’s

horizons, introducing students to new ways of looking at, and thinking about, the world.

This necessarily entails an element of persuasion and of drawing the audience in a little

25

bit at a time. In order for such an endeavor to be successful, educators need to have

some idea of where their students are starting from before they can be lead to where

they need to be. There is so much more to a student’s “starting point,” than their score

on a standardized test. An essential component of their “starting point” is the way they

“think the world is” and educators and administrators must be cognizant of that.

To truly prosper, as a free society and as individuals, it is not enough to merely do

well on standardized tests. What is needed are citizens that do not fall for the idea that

vaccines cause autism, that do not spend millions, if not billions, of their precious

health-care dollars on homeopathic remedies that do not work, and parents that are not

so certain of the “power of prayer” as an efficacious treatment for disease, that they

refuse conventional (i.e. double-blind tested and verified) medical treatment for their

sick child. It is quite possible to believe all the things above, and still do well on

standardized tests or write sophisticated software for a modern computer. This

research, while in no sense conclusive, will hopefully encourage these important issues

to be examined in the development of ongoing “Education and Outreach” strategies

surrounding the Sanford Lab, and hopefully, the NSF’s DUSEL.

26

Works Cited

Altemeyer, Bob. "Dogmatic Behavior Among Students: Testing a New Measure of Dogmatism."

Journal of Social Psychology 142. 6 (2002): 713-21. EBSCO MegaFILE. Devereaux

Library, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota. 13

May, 2008. <http://search.ebscohost.com/>

Altemeyer, Bob, and Bruce Hunsberger. "A Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale: The Short

and Sweet of It." International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 14. 1 (2004): 47-

54.

<https://iis.bhsu.edu:2443/login?url==http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true

&db=keh&AN=12284602&site=ehost-live>

Berger, Kathleen Stassen. The Developing Person: Through the Life Span. New York: Worth

Publishers, 2008.

CAMSE. "Deep Science for Everyone". 2007. CAMSE.org. 2008. 19 Oct. 2008.

<http://www.camse.org/underground/lecture_series.php>.

---. "What is CAMSE?". 2007. CAMSE.org. 10 Sep. 2008. <http://www.camse.org/about/>.

Clifford, Matthew, et al. "K–20 Partnerships: Literature Review and Recommendations for

Research": Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 2008. MSP.net. 28 Sep. 2008. 18

Aug. 2008.

<http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/partnership_literature_review.pdf?media_0000000027

58.pdf>.

"Fermilab Cultural Events". 26 Nov. 2008. 28 Nov. 2008.

<http://www.fnal.gov/culture/NewArts/index.shtml>.

27

"Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory". 26 Nov. 2008. 28 Nov. 2008.

<http://www.fnal.gov/>.

Franciosi, Robert J. The Rise and Fall of American Public Schools: The Political Economy of

Public Education in the Twentieth Century. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004.

Gardner, David Pierpont, et al. "A Nation At Risk: The Imperative For Educational Reform".

1983. United States Department of Education. 7 October, 1999. 28 August, 2008.

<http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html>.

Kadlec, Alison, Will Friedman, and Amber Ott. "Important, But Not for Me: Kansas and

Missouri Students and Parents Talk About Math, Science and Technology Education":

FDR Group, 2007. Public Agenda. 18 Sep. 2007. 18 Sep. 2008.

<http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/important_but_not_for_me.pdf>.

McGough, Jeff. "Comment on local science education". December 2006. 29 June, 2008.

<http://www.mcs.sdsmt.edu/mcgough/science/localscience.html>.

---. Personal Interview. 26 Jun. 2008

Mervis, Jeffrey. "EDUCATION: A New Bottom Line For School Science." Science 319. 5866

(2008): 1030-33. <http://www.sciencemag.org>

---. "U.S. GRADUATE TRAINING: Top Ph.D. Feeder Schools Are Now Chinese." Science 321.

5886 (2008): 185-. <http://www.sciencemag.org>

Miller, Jon D., Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto. "Science Communication: Public

Acceptance of Evolution." Science 313. 5788 (2006): 765-66.

<http://www.sciencemag.org>

28

NSF. "The Math and Science Partnership Program at NSF - An Overview": National Science

Foundation, 2007. 10 Jul. 2008. 12 Jul. 2008.

<http://www.nsf.gov/ehr/MSP/nsf05069_2.jsp>.

---. "MSP National Impact Report": National Science Foundation, 2007. 27 Jan 2008. 12 Jul.

2008. <http://www.nsf.gov/news/longurl.cfm?id=51>.

---. "MSP Partners". National Science Foundation. 10 Jul. 2008. 15 Sep. 2008.

<http://www.nsf.gov/ehr/MSP/nsf05069_6.jsp>.

Parry, James. "Project PRIME". 2001. projectprime.org. 13 Oct. 2008.

<http://www.primeproject.org/>.

"The PISA 2003 assessment framework—mathematics, reading, science and problem solving

knowledge and skills". Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), 2003. 26 August, 2008. <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf>.

Popham, Julie. "South Dakota Counts". 2006. Northeast Educational Services Cooperative.

2006. 12 Sep. 2008. <http://www.northeastcoop.org/page1115535.aspx>.

Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York, NY:

Ballentine Books, 1996.

Sayler, Ben, and June Apaza. "Using Data to Guide Mathematics Reform within a K-12

District". MSP Evaluation Summit II, Minneapolis, MN: Black Hills State University,

2006. 15 Mar. 2007. 12 Nov. 2008.

<http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/SaylerApaza.pdf?media_000000002224.pdf>.

"Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 Volume 1". National Science Board, 2008. National

Science Foundation. No modification date given. 17 August, 2008.

<http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/volume1.pdf>.

29

"Science for All Americans (SFAA) Online: Introduction". 1990. Project 2061. American

Association for the Advancement of Science. Copyrighted 1990. 26 August, 2008.

<http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/intro.htm>.

Shermer, Michael. The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press, 2001.

---. How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God. New York, NY: W.H.

Freeman/Owl Books, 2003.

St. John, Mark, et al. "The Appalachian Math Science Partnership: A Multi-State Umbrella

Partnership Promoting Local Mathematics And Science Reform": Inverness Research,

2008. MSP.net. 17 Jun. 2008. 26 Aug. 2008.

<http://hub.mspnet.org/exit.cfm?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einverness%2Dresearch

%2Eorg%2Freports%2F2008%5F01%2DAMSPClose%2Dups%2Dsetrpts%2Epdf>.

SUSEL. "Education and Outreach". 2008. Sanford Underground Laboratory at Homestake.

2008. 11 Nov. 2008.

<http://www.sanfordundergroundlaboratoryathomestake.org/index.php?option=com_cont

ent&view=section&layout=blog&id=8&Itemid=17>.

Tomanek, Debra. "Building Successful Partnerships Between K–12 and Universities." Cell

Biology Education 4. Spring 2005. 10 April, 2008.

<http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/4/1/32>

USDoE. "MSP Program Overview". Last modified date not given. 11 Aug. 2008.

<http://www.ed-

msp.net/protected/overview.jsp;jsessionid=AE2F76027399753C6BE5CF5AE6F3CBD7>

.

30

---. "U.S. Department of Education´s Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP)". Last

modified date not given. 11 Aug. 2008. <http://www.ed-msp.net/do/Welcome>.

Wheeler, Gerald. "Science education for parents." Issues in Science & Technology 24. 1 (2007):

8-9. EBSCO MegaFILE. Ebscohost. Devereaux Library, South Dakota School of Mines

and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota. 28 April, 2008.

<http://search.ebscohost.com>

Williams, Valerie L., et al. "Math Science Partnership of Southwest Pennsylvania: Year Three

Evaluation Report": Rand Corporation. 11 December, 2007. 10 April, 2008.

<http://rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR396/>.

Appendix A – The Survey

Introduction

In July 2007, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds announced that the former

Homestake Gold Mine in Lead, South Dakota had been chosen by the National Science

Foundation (NSF) as the site for a new Deep Underground Science and Engineering

Laboratory (DUSEL). South Dakota invested a considerable amount of state and private

money in preparing the former Homestake mine for this purpose and in lobbying the

NSF and the scientific community generally, even before the announcement was made

that South Dakota had indeed been selected. The Governor, in persuading legislators

31

and the public to make the investment in the mine’s rehabilitation, in addition to the

obvious economic benefits, frequently touted the benefits of having such a facility for

education, particularly science education.

The DUSEL is expected to conduct research in cosmology (the origin and fate of the

universe), fundamental particle physics (protons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.), geology and

geophysics (how the earth and the stuff it is made of came to be and how it has

changed since), and the nature and origin of microscopic life found deep underground.

Basic scientific research is often conducted at public expense. Justifying this

expense to citizens can be difficult when some feel the methods and results of science

to be too mechanistic; leaving no room for personal faith, values, and meaning–things

many feel make America great. Others feel that the U.S.A.’s position as a world leader,

in economics, politics, and science critically depends on the nation remaining true to its

traditions of open debate and free inquiry and believe not funding research that will

certainly be pursued by other nations would be to forfeit that leadership.

This survey is meant to determine attitudes about a range of issues involving

science by presenting a series of what may seem very “over the top” statements and

asking to what degree you agree or disagree. Some statements will assess the degree

to which personal values and beliefs do or do not line up with the methods and findings

of modern science. Yet others will be about the place of science education in public

schools. Those taking the survey will likely find things they very much agree with as well

as items they passionately disagree with. Do not be offended by the fact that the

questions are stated in “all or nothing” terms–the shades of meaning contained in the

responses to the statements are the important thing. Please remember that all

responses are anonymous and the only information that will be recorded about

respondents is age, gender, current academic level (Freshman, Sophomore, etc.),

intended major (if known), and the highest grade level your parents completed (if

known). Please be honest in your responses as the fairness and accuracy of this

research critically depends on it. Rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the

32

statements using the following scale and circle your answers in the space provided

following each question.

If you Strongly Agree (SA), that is a 5;

If you Agree (A) (but not strongly), that is a 4;

If you are Neutral or Undecided (N/U), that is a 3;

If you Disagree (D) (but not strongly), that is a 2;

If you Strongly Disagree (SD), that is a 1.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this survey.

Gender: M F (please circle) Age: _______

I am a: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior (please circle)

My intended major is ______________________ (indicate if undecided)

I plan to pursue graduate studies: YES NO UNSURE (please circle)

Please circle the highest grade your parents completed (if known):

Mother: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16+ unknown

Father: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16+ unknown

33

1. An understanding of human evolution may help explain how people can be

compassionate and selfless in some situations, or cruel and evil in other

situations. D (contra-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

2. Science, like that to be done at the DUSEL, may lead people to question the

role of God in governing the universe. SR&E (pro-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

3. Whenever science and sacred scripture conflict, science is probably right.

D(contra-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

4. The right of parents to control their children’s education should take

precedence over the expertise of the scientists and professional educators

who write the textbooks and teach the classes. SR&E (pro-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

5. It is wrong to claim to be certain that something is objectively “true,” unless

there is evidence which logically justifies that certainty.4 T/O (contra-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

6. There are basically only two kinds of people in the world: the Righteous, who

will be rewarded by God, and the rest, who will not. D (pro-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

4 A paraphrase of the T.H. Huxley quote, “It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”

34

7. Our understanding of nature increases over time because scientific theories

are constantly being tested and revised in light of new evidence or

observations. T/O (contra-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

8. No matter what science claims to explain about creation, one must never be

allowed to doubt God’s revealed truth. D (pro-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

9. Even if the research done at the DUSEL conflicts with the religion or belief

systems of some people, the science should still be done. SR&E (contra-

scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

10. The prosperity the United States has enjoyed is because of our Christian

heritage. SR&E (pro-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

11. Freedom of inquiry, even if it leads to uncomfortable conclusions, is essential

to science and to America’s future as a free republic. SR&E (contra-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

12. God will surely reward those who remain steadfast in their certainty and

devotion to the Truth of His Word. T/O (pro-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

13. It is more important to be a good person than to believe in God and the right

religion. D (contra-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

35

36

14. Scientific theories are always changing so you can never trust what scientists

say because it may be different tomorrow. T/O (pro-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

15. An essential part of education is exposing the students to new ideas, even

ideas they, or their parents, may not agree with. SR&E (contra-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

16. “Satan” not just the name people give to their own bad impulses. There really

is an external evil presence who leads us away from God. D (pro-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

17. The prosperity the United States enjoyed in the 20th century is largely

because of our leadership in science. SR&E (contra-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

18. Science promotes a materialism that threatens to drain the world of moral

purpose and spiritual meaning. SR&E (pro-scored) 5 – SA 4 – A 3 – N/U 2 – D 1 – SD

Notes: D – Dogmatism

T/O – Tolerance for Ambiguity/Openness

SR&E – Science Research and Education

Appendix B – Survey Scoring Matrix

“D” Q’s Low “D” High “D” “T/O” Q’s High “T/O” Low “T/O” “SR&E” Q’s. Support for “SR&E” Not Supportive of “SR&E”

1 - Contra 2 4 5 - Contra 2 4 2 - Pro 2 4

3 - Contra 2 4 7 - Contra 2 4 4 - Pro 2 4

6 - Pro 2 4 12 - Pro 2 4 9 - Contra 2 4

8 - Pro 2 4 14 - Pro 2 4 10 - Pro 2 4

13 - Contra 2 4 11 - Contra 2 4

16 - Pro 2 4 15 - Contra 2 4

17 - Contra 2 4

18 - Pro 2 4

Cutoff Scores ≤12 ≥ 24 ≤8 ≥ 16 ≤16 ≥ 32

37