Jamie Hale

Jamie Hale

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Project: thinking about science



The word science is derived from a latin word scientia meaning an organized body of theoretical knowledge.  Giving a precise definition of science is difficult as there is little consensus in the scientific community as to what that definition should be.   When discussing science what is often discussed are products of science or scientific methodology.   That is, making use of scientific findings (scientific products).  Even though this description provides part of the picture it is an incomplete description regarding the enormous enterprise of science. Science in various contexts has huge implications and a comprehensive study should be approached using a multi-disciplinary approach.   A comprehensive understanding of the implications of science requires more than the procedural skills to conduct research. Acquiring general or domain specific knowledge or citing studies is important, but doesn't indicate scientific cognition, or a comprehensive understanding of science.
    
Project: thinking about science involves pilot studies, assessments, a wide range of samples, full studies, scale design, univariate, bivariate and multivariate stats.  The project is a long term commitment with an emphasis on examining the association among various measures of science and finding predictors that may be useful regarding scientific achievement in an array of domains. Science is hard work.  The project will involve a number of people from various disciplines. 
 
Scientific literacy vs. Scientific cognition (thinking, reasoning)

Scientific literacy has been conceptualized  in various ways (see; Norris & Phillips, 2002).  Examples include understanding science and its applications, knowledge of what counts as science, knowledge of risks and benefits of science, etc.  In the current research scientific literacy is synonymous with general scientific knowledge that involves various domains.  This form of literacy is sometimes referred to as derived scientific literacy.  Scientific cognition is not the same thing as scientific literacy; it involves multiple components and sub-components (Feist, 2006).  Deanna Kuhn asserts that the essence of scientific thinking is coordinating belief with evidence (2001).  At the very least scientific cognition involves philosophy of science, scientific methodology, quantitative reasoning, probabilistic reasoning and elements of deductive and inductive logic.
Various scales have been developed to measure scientific thinking / reasoning / cognition.  Kahan developed a scale called the Ordinary Science Intelligence Scale (OSI_2.0, Kahan, 2014).  Drummond and Fischhoff (2015) developed the Scientific Reasoning Scale.  Drummond and Fischhoff found that measures of scientific reasoning were distinct from measures of scientific literacy.  Kevin Dunbar (2000) and Zimmerman (2005) have also conducted research on scientific thinking.  Dunbar's research mostly involves examining cognitive processes underpinning thinking during the research process, while Zimmerman's research is broader, examining various scales, and development patterns of scientific thought.  Fugelsang et al. (2004) have examined strategies that scientists and non-scientists use to evaluate data that is consistent or non-consistent with expectations. 

Stage 1: Current research

Sam Sloss and I are working on a paper that involves a large number of outcomes, including measures of general scientific knowledge, attitudes towards science and confidence in science.  The paper also involves an array of stats; univariate and multi-variate statistical procedures are used.

The development of a new scientific literacy scale and scientific cognition scale are also in the process.  Soon, the scales will be administered, in a pilot study, to University students.  Cronbach's alpha will be utilized once data is collected.  The scale might need to be modified  before using in studies. 
    
We are in the early stages of the project and hope to advance at moderate pace.  I plan on making progress reports consistently.  In the end my hope is that a large amount of data will be collected and can be utilized to further advance science and provide everyone interested in science useful information.  

References available upon request

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Trying to Remember



In one study researchers investigated the role of intentional-encoding instructions and task relevance at study on visual memory performance (Varakin & Hale, 2014). Task relevance was manipulated by having participants keep a running tally of either the objects they were attempting to remember or an irrelevant category of objects during study. Half of the participants within each level of task relevance were further instructed to remember one category of objects for a subsequent recognition memory test (intentional memory group) , and the other half of the participants were not informed of a memory test (incidental memory group). Intentional-encoding instructions improved recognition discrimination only when participants were not already keeping a tally of the to-be-remembered objects. This result suggests that intentional-encoding instructions may improve visual memory due to generic attentional modulation, not encoding-specific processes.


In another study, we conducted at Eastern Kentucky University, we examined whether intentional encoding instructions improve long-term recognition memory for visual appearance (Varakin, Frye, & Mayfield, 2012). The effect of memory instructions was examined using a factorial design, so that attention to/task relevance of objects could be manipulated independently of memory instructions. The sample size was large enough to achieve power equal to .80 for medium effect sizes (f = .25). There was no effect of intentional memory instructions. These results suggest that observers cannot easily enhance encoding and storage of visual information in long-term memory.  Intent to remember, per-se, may not enhance memory.   


Trying to remember or reading material over and over does not necessarily lead to better memory. The appropriate behaviors are required, even when one is trying to remember. The foundations of memory (declarative memory) include: brain health, focused attention, elaborative encoding, spaced rehearsal (distributed practice) and testing. A key underlying factor supporting memory is understanding.

      The foundations of memory support understanding
      Understanding implies strong organization of memory connections
      ALL MEMORY RESIDES IN THE BRAIN!!

In my seminars Exploring Memory and Strategies To Maximize Learning a comprehensive overview of memory is provided.

Friday, December 25, 2015

Confused About Critical Thinking?



Educators often pay lip service to the idea of teaching “critical thinking”.  But, when asked to define “critical thinking” answers are often weak and sometimes so ambiguous they are virtually worthless.  Common responses to the defining  critical thinking questions include, “teaching them how to think”, “teaching them formal logic”, or “teaching them how to solve problems.”   They already know how to think, logic is only a portion of what is needed to increase critical thinking, and teaching them how to solve problems is an ambiguous answer that is context specific.  Stanovich argues, “that the super-ordinate goal we are actually trying to foster is that of rationality” (Stanovich, 2010, p.198). Ultimately, educators are concerned with rational thought in both the epistemic sense and the practical sense.  Certain thinking dispositions are valued because they help us base our beliefs on available evidence and assist us in achieving our goals. Many educators express to students and administrators the importance of critical thinking, yet, many of those expressing the importance of critical thinking don't know what critical thinking encompasses.  In fact, many educators are simply in the business of repeating what others say-Critical thinking is important.  Critical thinking, as promoted by educators, is often and appendage used to increase the value of intellectual status, or used to indicate this course is different.   

Understanding Rationality

Rationality is concerned with two key things: what is true and what to do (Manktelow, 2004).  In order for our beliefs to be rational they must be in agreement with evidence.  In order for our actions to be rational they must be conducive to obtaining our goals. 

Cognitive scientists generally identify two types of rationality: instrumental and epistemic (Stanovich, 2009). Instrumental rationality can be defined as adopting appropriate goals, and behaving in a manner that optimizes one's ability to achieve goals. Epistemic rationality can be defined as holding beliefs that are commensurate with available evidence. This type of rationality is concerned with how well our beliefs map onto the structure of the world. Epistemic rationality is sometimes called evidential rationality or theoretical rationality. Instrumental and epistemic rationality are related.  In order to optimize rationality one needs adequate knowledge in the domains of logic, scientific thinking, and probabilistic thinking.   A wide variety of cognitive skills fall within these broad domains of knowledge.  Components of critical thinking have been operationalized in a wide range of studies.  

Critical thinking can and has been measured.  CT is something much more than the over conceptualized ambiguous definitions often provided by educators and others (evidence based practitioners, science writers, skeptics, and so on...)  perpetuating the importance of critical thinking. 

Tasks on a critical thinking test include (Hale, 2012):

Answer the following:

John is looking at Cindy but Cindy is looking at James. John is married but James is not.
Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
A) Yes   B) No   C) Cannot be determined

Does a conclusion follow logically from the two premises?

Premise 1: All living things need food
Premise 2: Animals need food
Conclusion: Animals are living things
A) Yes B) No

Read and answer the following:

A suit and tie cost $120 in total. The suit costs $100 more than the tie.
How much does the tie cost?     

In order for educators to successfully teach critical thinking / rational thinking it is imperative that they understand what critical thinking actually is and why it matters.  What are the goals of critical thinking?  How can critical thinking be assessed?  Does my curriculum contain information regarding scientific reasoning, logic, heuristic processing and probabilistic thinking? 

Critical thinking is about what is true (epistemic rationality) and what to do (instrumental rationality).  The best tip I can provide regarding critical thinking is to educate yourself on the works of the most influential people in the field of critical thinking.  A few of those people  include: Keith Stanovich, Daniel Kahneman, Richard West, Shane Frederick and Jonathan Baron. 

Rationality vs. Intelligence

 Rational thinking skills are as important as intelligence.  Intelligence and rationality are often dissociated. Research demonstrates that intelligence is often a weak predictor of rationality.  This has been shown over a wide range of studies.  Intelligence is important, but there is more to good thinking than intelligence.  Intelligence reflects reasoning abilities across a wide variety of domains particularly novel ones.  In addition, intelligence reflects general declarative knowledge acquired through acculturated learning.  Rationality reflects appropriate goal setting, goal optimization, and holding evidence-based beliefs.

Chapter 2 in my book - In Evidence We Trust- provides information on the science of critical thinking / rational thinking.  

References are available upon request. 

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Exercise Does The Brain Good!


Exercise may lead to a wide range of benefits- increased cardiovascular health, stronger bones and muscles, stronger connective tissue, and increased overall fitness and athleticism.  There is a plethora of evidence that shows exercise is beneficial to the brain (Fernandez et al., 2013).  Research using various methods from a variety of domains supports the finding.  

A recent study, conducted in the Netherlands, found evidence that people who utilized an exercise bike for 6 months experienced an increased connectivity and density in their brain’s white matter. This was seen in people with schizophrenia and people with no clinical diagnosis (Svatkova et al., 2015)  Abstract 

Another study, conducted in Taiwan, found that people with diabetes or metabolic syndrome who utilized a stationary bike for 12 weeks showed an increase in brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a growth factor involved in supporting neural plasticity processes- growth and differentiation of new neurons and neuron connections (Tsai et al., 2015) Abstract 


Why do fitness professionals fail to mention that exercise benefits the brain? There are probably three primary reasons for this. First, they are not familiar with the research, which is usually conducted in the field of brain science, as opposed to exercise science. Second, the subject matter can be intimidating – the brain is arguably the most complex structure in existence. Third, they have minimal knowledge of the brain and brain processes, thus they would rather not discuss the topic (brain is often the domain of cognitive, behavioral and neuroscientists).

Some of the key mechanisms mediating the effects of exercise on the brain:

Neurogenesis
Synaptic plasticity Angiogenesis & vascular growth factors
Neurotransmitters & growth factors.
Synaptic plasticity
Spine density

In my seminar -Your Brain & Exercise- these mechanisms are discussed in detail.  Other topics discussed: why health pros fail to mention brain benefits of exercise, physical activity and school curriculum, exercise and Parkinson’s, depression, stroke, neuroplasticity demystified, what type of exercise (aerobic vs. anaerobic), exercise recommendations for brain health, future research directions, etc. 


In conclusion, exercise offers an array of benefits.  Brain health is imperative to overall health.  The brain is part of the body, and should be referred as so.  Discard use of the phrases “brain and body” and “mental and physical.” The brain is part of the body, and all mental processes emanate from a physical structure: the brain.  

Further Reading: 

Exercise and The Brain   

 Your Brain on Exercise


Exercise Benefits Individuals with Parkinson’s Disease 


Online Store

  

 

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

It's Only a Theory??

“It’s only a theory” is a phrase often used to suggest that the theory in question is weak.  This phrase is often used as a response to a theory that one doesn’t agree with or understand.  It is imperative to recognize that theory in science is drastically different than the type of theory discussed in everyday conversation.  In science, theory represents a body of knowledge that offers an explanation for converging lines of evidence. Science needs theory!   Lay person theory (everyday theory) reflects speculation or a guess directed at explaining phenomena. 
  
“Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”  National Center for Science Education

“The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” National Academy of Sciences

When juxtaposing lay theory and scientific theory it is evident that they are very different.  “It’s only a theory” is a powerful statement in the context of science, as theory represents a high status on the ladder of explanation.  It is probably a good idea to abandon the phrase “It’s only a theory” when discussing theories in science. The type of statement is more appropriately directed at lay person theory.

Modern civilization is largely dependent on science and technology.  Most people would agree, most of the time.  That is, until science repudiates cherished beliefs.  Scientific processes are unquestionably the most powerful we have for uncovering reality.  Of course, scientific processes demonstrate weaknesses, but they are the best we have for understanding the universe.
 
Understanding and appreciating the full implications of science, requires, at least, a basic knowledge of the history of science, philosophy of science and matters of scientific literacy.  In addition, an understanding of research methodology and statistics will be beneficial in regards to:

Reading scientific journals

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience (in popular science articles)

Protection from quacks

Being a better thinker

Being an independent consumer of research information (you can decide the credibility of the information)

Being a consistent scientific thinker (applying principles of scientific thinking to all contexts)

To learn more about scientific thinking refer to In Evidence We Trust: The Need for ScienceRationality and Statistics