Transcript Chapter 1: Scientific Thinking Clicker Questions

Chapter 1: Scientific Thinking
Clicker Questions
by Kristen Curran, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
Science and the implications of
science impact my daily life.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
An advertisement for a well-known brand of acetaminophen reads:
“Doctors recommend (brand name) more than all other brands of pain
relievers combined to reduce fever and for the temporary relief of minor
aches and pains due to headache, muscular aches, backache, arthritis,
the common cold, toothache, and menstrual cramps.” This statement
may or may not be true, but given the fact that ibuprofen can treat pain
and inflammation but can lead to stomach problems, why might doctors
recommend this product for the ailments above?
1. The ailments are due to pain not associated with
inflammation.
2. The ailments are due to pain associated with
inflammation.
3. Ibuprofen cannot treat the types of pain listed
above.
4. Ibuprofen causes drowsiness.
Which answer below does not
exemplify knowledge gained
through empirical testing?
1. Sugar tastes sweet.
2. The sky looks blue during the
daytime.
3. I can smell freshly popped
popcorn from a distance.
4. A rabbit’s foot can bring good
luck.
Which question below can be
addressed by using the scientific
method?
1. How do salmon migrate great distances
yet return to spawn and die in the
stream/river of their birth?
2. Do antibacterial soaps kill more bacteria
then soap alone?
3. Do all living creatures have a soul?
4. Choices 1 and 2 are correct.
Which statement or question below
is a hypothesis for the validity of
eyewitness testimony?
1. Is eyewitness testimony always
correct?
2. Eyewitness testimony is always correct.
3. If eyewitness testimony is always
correct, then DNA and physical
evidence should support the story of
the eyewitness.
4. None of the above.
Which statement below restates
our hypothesis about the validity of
an eyewitness as a null hypothesis?
1. Eyewitness testimony is always correct.
2. Eyewitness testimony may or may not be
correct.
3. Eyewitness testimony is always incorrect.
4. Eyewitness testimony must be
corroborated with physical evidence.
Which prediction below follows from the
hypothesis that ibuprofen decreases
inflammation?
1. If a patient suffers from a fever, then
taking ibuprofen will reduce the fever.
2. If a patient sprains their ankle, then taking
ibuprofen can decrease the swelling.
3. If a patient suffers from a cut or scrape,
then taking ibuprofen can be used to
relieve the pain.
4. If a patient suffers from nausea, then
taking ibuprofen will relieve the nausea.
Classroom Catalyst
Design a simple
experiment
How would you decide what brand of
fertilizer is the most effective at growing
bean plants?
In the experiment that you designed,
how did you propose to confirm that the
variable you were testing would have
any effect?
1. Compare the variable to an untreated
sample.
2. Compare the variable to a
known/expected outcome.
3. Compare the variable to another
variable.
4. Choices 1 and 2 are correct.
If you wanted to test if antibacterial soap
worked better than regular soap, which
answer has the strongest experimental
design?
1. Have people in the experiment wash with antibacterial
soap first and later with regular soap and compare.
2. Have two groups of people wash with either
antibacterial soap or regular soap and compare.
3. Have two groups of people wash with either
antibacterial or regular soap, without knowing which
type of soap is being used, and compare.
4. Have two groups of people wash with either
antibacterial or regular soap, with neither the
researchers nor the groups knowing which type of soap
is being used, and compare.
What is the average
range of scores for
students who do not use
textbooks while
studying?
1.
2.
3.
4.
90 to 100%
95%
5565%
65%
Do you think that understanding the world
we live in using science necessarily
contradicts other ways of knowing, such as
philosophy, religion, and art?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree