la sierra university biology student survey analysis

8/6/2019 La Sierra University Biology Student Survey Analysis

1/13

Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 1

CCoonnttiinnuueeddAAnnaallyyssiissooffLLaaSSiieerrrraaUUnniivveerrssiittyySSttuuddeennttSSuurrvveeyyRReevveeaallssFFaauullttyyAAlllleeggaattiioonnss

For more than two years the biology program at La Sierra University (LSU) hasbeen in a whirlpool of controversy over the accusations that they are teaching ofevidence-based science and failing to emphasize young-earth creationism. Thisconflict has gone so far, according to anAdventist Reviewarticle, that somebelieve that the university is teaching the theory of evolution to biology studentsas the explanation for the origin of life. 1 This polemic is an example of themisunderstandings that arises when the worlds of science and religion collide.The assumption that religion must exclude science has, in part, been due to afailure to adequately analyze the characteristics of diverse ways of knowing. Thediscipline of science is greatly respected in the modern world even when scientistsspeak about matters religious. If, however, that respect for science and scientistsis to continue, truthfulness on the part of teachers, students, Trustees and

educational administrators has to be an iron law, not a vague aspiration.

After listening to a welter of accusations swirling around the issues, the LSUBoard of Trustees appointed a Creation-Evolution Study Group (hereafter theCommittee) to investigate and summarize the charges against LSUs biologyprogram. Many of these charges came from web-based fundamentalist sourcesusing truth-corroding tactics that LSU biology program is promoting mainstreamevolution views on origin while avoiding creationism as science. They take thefear word evolution and put it in an echo chamber to create confusion. Threeallegations emerged and the Committee, unable to vanquish the claims, decided

to poll the biology students directly using a questionnaire and to seek theiropinions as to whether or not the accusations were true.

In the present study these three allegations will be examined in the context of thestudents responses. The three claims against the LSU biology program were that:

o The Biblical account of six literal consecutive 24-hour days of creation hasbeen discredited and labeled as merely figurative language;

o The theory of evolution is taught as having greater scientific merit than theBiblical account of creation and as more accurately portraying the origin anddevelopment of life, and

o Students who maintain a traditional SDA perspective with regard tocreation are marginalized and sometimes ridiculed for holding this position.

A six-level Likert (1932) questionnaire was created and made available on theInternet using a polling company called Zoomerang.com. A quarter of thestudents in the biology program over the past four years entered the surveyanonymously. Sixty-seven percent had only taken freshman General Biology. Theremaining 33 percent of the participants were four-year biology graduates.


2/13

Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Survey 2

Twenty-nine percent of those who responded were non-Adventists, largely from aChristian background. (see Jared Wright. Spectrum13 May 2011.)

After the survey was completed the Committee combined the upper selections,strongly agree and agree (from a six-level Likert survey) into a group called

agree. The strongly disagree and disagree items were combined into asecond group and labeled disagree. 2 Thenand here is where standardstatistical practice was flagrantly violatedthe neutral responses were lumped

with the disagree responses! This was uniformly the case throughout the surveyexcept for one question, Q6(the one question where an agree answer wouldmake LSUs biology program look bad). Students filling out the questionnaire

were not warned that the neutral response would be turned into a disagree oragree response. As a consequence the students who choose neutral respondedin a way they did not intend to say. In every case their neutral response wasmade to say that the LSU biology department was deficient.

What was the effect of this violation of normal statistical practice by treating theLikert scales as a yes / no survey and combining the neutral responses intothe no category? This question is especially important now that we know it wasthe outcome from this very survey that provoked the Open Apology Letter fromthe LSU Board. The apology letter in turn, according to theAdventist Review, entered the decision matrix used by the Board of the Adventist Accreditation

Association (AAA) recently to withhold its accreditation to match the eight-yearaccreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges that had beenrecommended by the AAA ten-member site visiting team last year.

To analyze possible distortions from doctoring the data I took these samequestions and student responses and recalculated the survey results withoutincluding the neutral responses in the data analysisthe standard way in whichneutral responses are typically handled. This is justified because the students

who answered neutral on the survey did not consider this selection as either anagree or as a disagree. To analyze the data in the present study the agreeresponses were also combined into one group and the disagree responses intothe other group (without including the neutral responses). Like the Committee,the no basis for response item was ignored. In the Committees report thedisagree group along with neutral was highlighted as a shortcomingmatching the allegations in the biology program. The Committee did not conduct

statistical evaluations of the responses. That is, the Committee did not determinewhich items were statistically significant and which could have been due tochance. 3

After calculating the percentage responses for the agree and disagree groupsfor each question, the results were plotted in a bar graph comparing the presentstudy with the Committees findings. The top bar graph represents the presentstudy with green/orange bars and the lower graph with red/blue bars


3/13


representing the Committees approach. The frequency for the neutral and nobasis for response for each question are shown in the legend. It is clearly evidentthat the effect of the Committee stacking neutral responses into the disagreegroup shortened the agree bar and lengthened the disagree bar in everyquestion (except for Q6).

The Chi-square goodness of fit test was used to determine the significance of thedifferences between the agree and disagree responses for each question. Thestatistical conclusion is shown below each question. In only three questions wasthere no significant difference in the number of agree responses compared

with the disagree responses. Unfortunately, these three questions were workedinto the apology letter, and from the statistical conclusion (no difference) onecould argue that the interpretation in the apology letter was certainly not

justified. Despite its limitations, the survey did uncover some useful andimportant insights from the biology students.

The Committee used this survey to report its findings to the LSU Board of Trusteesand attached considerable significance to the student responses. But the survey

was not created by an outside professional polling companymany on Spectrumsblog have already pointed out the surveys defects and inappropriate assumptions.Reliable surveys are difficult to create and this one has its share of defects.

Intuitively, if data was shifted around without justification it was probably doneto support pre-existing notions, or to achieve certain ambitions. In science andaccounting this is called cooking the books. The results in this study will showthe ever-present danger of motivated reasoning on the part of some driven by

dogma and prejudice in the hopes of obtaining certain desired results from thestudent survey. To force the evidence of this prejudice to the surface more fully,the wording in each question was used to assign, as closely as possible, eachquestion to only one of the three allegations (above). This allows a determinationin this study, using the statistical results from each question, as to whether or notthe allegation was adequately identified in the question, and whether or not thestudents response actually supported the claim in the allegation. Often, there

was only a loose word fit between the allegations and the survey questions. TheCommittee seemed reluctant to test its own allegations. Student responses weregrouped together as individual graphs below each allegation, along withcomments and data summaries.

Allegation 1: The Biblical account of six literal consecutive 24-hourdays of creation has been discredited and labeled as merely figurativelanguage. 44

Q6: Evolutionary theories were taught as the factual explanation of the origin oflife.


4/13


49% Disagree

59% Disagree

41% Agre e

49% Agree

Present Study

Committee

CCoommmmeennttss:: This question could also apply to allegation 2. This is the only question where theCommittee stacked thirteen of the neutral responses into the agree group of responses tomatch the disagree responses. Because this is the only instance where this was doneand this isthe only question where an agree response would support the allegation it seems highly likelythat the decision to combine neutral with yes opinion was a deliberate attempt to confirm thatthe biology taught the factual explanation of the origin of life. In all of the other questions theneutral responses were combined with the no or disagree responses. Quite apart from theabove statistical wrongdoing the better students would have difficulty knowing how to answer this

declarative question. These students would likely remember that they were taught thatevolutionary theories address lifes unity and diversity, and not the factual explanation of theorigin of life. The upper graphs (green/orange) are the current analysis. The lower two bars(red/blue) were obtained from the Committee report to the Board. For this question there is nostatistical difference between agree responses and disagree. Consequently the Committeesinterpretation is NOT supported by responses in this question. N = 77. Statistically, nodifference. P = 0.1385. Neutral responses = 13. No basis for response = 1.

Q8: The Seventh-day Adventist view of creation was presented in biology classes.

44% Disagree

40% Disagree

60% Agree

50% Agree

Comments: In the preceding two years all incoming biology students participated in BIOL 111A, amultiple instructor class involving both biology and theology faculty. So it is surprising that thestudents did not remember taking a class where the emphasis was on the SDA Churchs teachingson creation. A high number of responses contained the middle option or neutral (10/76).Perhaps the students are confused by the clause in biology classes since BIOL 111A was taught

as a seminar. The distribution does not show a statistical difference between the agree and no.N = 76. Statistically, no difference, between agree and no responses. P = 0.0665. Neutralresponses = 10. No basis for response = 5.

Q9: The Seventh-day Adventist view of creation was supported in biology classes.


5/13


53% Disagree

40% Disagree

60% Agree

40% Agree

Comment: Nearly the same question as above only the word presented changed to supported.This question drew the largest neutral response in the study. When neutral is removed bothquestions show the same expected distribution. N = 62. Statistically, no difference, betweenagree and no responses. P = 0.1275. Neutral responses = 23. No basis for response = 6.

Analysis of Allegation 1: The presupposition that the Biblical account of creation hasbeen discredited and labeled as merely figurative language was not presented or testedby a specific question in the questionnaire. In a court of law the allegation would haveno standing simply because no evidence was presented. When these three questions were

analyzed using the Chi-square goodness-of-fit test the statistical results failed to show adifference between agree and no responses. Therefore, allegation 1 (the claim thatthe biology program at LSU discredits the Biblical account of six literal consecutive 24-

hour days of creation) cannot be supported from the student response data using thesethree specific survey questions. All three questions had a high observed frequency ofneutral responses. When not included in the data student opinions supported the viewthat creation was presented (supported) by 60 percent of the students. And finally,despite these three questions being under this allegation, the questions do not directly

address the six literal consecutive 24-hour days of creation or even specifically addressthe Biblical literal concept and whether this doctrine was discredited or labeled asmere figurative language. Instead, students were asked a broader-banded question

using the phrase Seventh-day Adventist view of creation. This phrase was not defined.This probably accounts for the middle option receiving the largest number of neutralresponses in these questions found in the survey.

Allegation 2: The theory of evolution is taught as having greaterscientific merit than the Biblical account of creation and as moreaccurately portraying the origin and development of life.

Q1: It is appropriate to present evolutionary theories in biology classes at LaSierra University.

7% Disagree

5% Disagree

95% Agree

92% Agree


6/13


Comment: N = 88. Statistically this question resulted in a very significant difference betweenagree and no. P =


7/13


Comment: N = 82. Very significant difference. P =


8/13


Comment: This is the first question that approaches a comparison between science andreligion. The statistic indicates that the students understand the difference of the two

worlds of knowing. N = 78. Very significant difference. P =


9/13


30% Disagree

21% Disagree

79% Agree

69% Agree

CCoommmmeenntt:: NN == 7788.. VVeerryyssiiggnniiffiiccaanntt ddiiffffeerreennccee.. PP ==


10/13


show significant separation in the answers. N = 74. Very significant difference. P =


11/13


ConclusionDespite the fact that the student survey did not directly address what theCommittee set out to determine, the survey uncovered a treasure trove ofinsightful information. The students actually passed along important information

about the biology program at LSU. Unfortunately, either accidentally ordeliberately, valuable insights were misread, overlooked or lost. 5 The responsesin the survey confirmedthat the LSU biology program was performing asexpected in a university, and that the professors went above and beyond theirstrictly scientific responsibilities. The biology teachers, according to the survey

were consistent in supporting students religious pilgrimage. Judging from thissurvey, as with most surveys when used as a tool for gathering opinions, theresults in every question can be said to have missed perfection (no filters wereapplied to the survey results and there seemed to be a pattern of discontent ordisgruntlement by a few students). This is one reason for turning to statistics.How confident are the findings of a survey? But at this junction we face the

trouble that individuals who already have their minds made up, possessingmotivated reasoning, may not be willing to acknowledge the enthusiasticupwelling and overwhelmingly supportive content of the students responses, evenfacing very significant difference in the statistical conclusion.

As the celebrated psychologist Leon Festinger pointed out. A man with aconviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away.Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and hefails to see your point.

Many students enter a biology program in preparation for medicine, dentistry,nursing and other health professions. Science professors in Seventh-day Adventistcolleges and universities introduce these students (for many it is the first time) tocritical thinking, stressing objectivity with impartial observations and descriptions,

while seeking naturalistic explanations of phenomena. This scientific educationbegins by explaining that all scientific theoriesface potential disproof, althoughmuch of what they will learn is factual and based on hard evidence (truth withoutcertainty). All scientific theories can be undone by an ugly little fact orobservation. The scientific method adheres rigidly to a set of rules (think of agame of tennis or soccer) based on obtaining a growing accumulation of reliableknowledge. Students learn the sequence of creating hypothesis, gathering data or

evidence, testing the validity of the ideas and attempting to falsify observations.In other words they learn biology through the man-made rules of naturalisticmethodology and inductive reasoning. Creationism (in the broad meaning that asupernatural force created) by its very nature cannot be falsified. Thissupernatural force is God, and the special act of creating animals and man out ofthe dust of the earth (special creationism) is a theological doctrine.


12/13


The case study here exhibits a classic example where a fundamentalist segment ofthe church seems to be suffering from the curse of the cult of certainty. Historyis replete with similar examples of individuals who are convinced they know thetruth and they must act as self-appointed swords of the Lord.

Of course now it is too late to unwind the damage by the Committees distortionsand faulty interpretation of the student survey. This reminds us that people incontested issues sometimes misuse data and cover up threatening information.Then the disconfirmation of all they believed makes them even more certain oftheir belief. This is often done inadvertently. Here it seems to have been doneintentionally. However, seeing this out in the open is an example of how beliefsrooted in emotions often treat facts and data as irrelevant. This constantfaultfinding on the part of the fundamentalist in the Church against science isdestructive and incredibly non-productive for LSU and the sciences in other

Adventist educational institutions. It is a wonder it hasnt touched medicaleducation with its understanding of evolution and the surprising diversity of

pathological forms. Church sponsored educational institutions can fail becausetoo much emphasis is placed upon controversial doctrines. The tendency toindoctrinate rather than enlighten (educate) may well cause Adventist educationto lose intellectual respectability. What we see here is a case study of whatappears to be an agenda-driven groupon the Committeetrying to forge a negativeimage or a false claim against the science program at LSU by employing outrightdata biasing toserve a particular purpose or goal. At the end of all of this conflict,given some time to reflect, we are likely to admire how these science teachersstood up to this challenge and maintained intellectual integrity (perhaps onoccasion without a full measure of forbearance). We dont know the daily life of a

biology teacher or a students based on a survey of this kind. But few doubt that agood education significantly increases the likelihood for success in the world. Andbased on the results shown in the survey these professors presented biology in allits forms and in a helpful way of relating science and religious faith. Despitethis turmoil, eighty percent of the participants responded that they wouldencourage others to study biology at LSU.

T. Joe Willey received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, inneuroscience and was a postdoctoral fellow at New York University in Buffalo and the

Brain Research Institute at UCLA. He also taught neuroscience at the Loma LindaUniversity School of Medicine, Walla Walla and La Sierra Universities.

T Joe Willey May 17, 2011 Written for Spectrum Blog.


13/13


Endnotes

1 La Sierra University Gains Window to Show Faithfulness to Churchs Creation Belief.Adventist Review. April 28, 2011. The suspicion that the origin of life is being taught at

La Sierra, highlighted by the critics in theAdventist Review, is absolutely false.2 Psychologists consider no strong difference between strongly agree and agree so thetwo items can be lumped together, also for the disagree and strongly disagree items. Butthere is no justification for including neutral with either the agree or disagree items.3 It should be noted that Provost Steve Pawluk in his Powerpoint presentation in Jared

Wrights article also did not combine neutral with either disagree or stronglydisagree. Pawluk was careful to exclude neutral in his presentation.4 None of the questions in the survey addresses the important issue whether or not thebiblical creation story was labeled as merely figurative language.5 Actually the Memorandum discussed many good features of both the faculty and thebiology program. It is the results of the interpretation of the survey that leaves a bad

taste and very little of the praise found in the Memorandum made it to the surface wheretheAdventist Reviewand educatetruth.com describe the results of the students

responses.

la sierra university biology student survey analysis

Documents