For more information about religion and science issues go to www.metanexus.net

Evaluations of RS102


RS102 - Spring 1996 - Evaluation

Below is a compilation of comments from students with reflections from the professor on the course "Science and the Sacred," which was taught at the University of Pennsylvania in the Spring of 1996. There were 34 students who completed the semester along with five adult auditors. The course was taught by Dr. William Grassie, a visiting lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies with support from the John Templeton Foundation.

The questionnaire was taken anonymously on the last day of class and was followed by a class discussion. Below is my attempt to synthesize and respond to the comments from students and auditors, while adding some of my own reflections. The evaluation is broken into seven sections:
1) Syllabus and Readings
2) Pedagogy
3) Use of the Internet
4) Class Assessment
5) Teacher Assessment
6) Public Lecture Series
7) Follow Up
Appendices
1) Course Promotional Brochure (not available online)
2) Course Syllabus
3) Lecture Series Brochures
4) Newspaper Coverage (not available online)
5) Final Exam and Answers
6) Budget and Expenditures (not available online)

Appendices follow the evaluation narrative that include copies of course materials. This report and more information on the course can be viewed on the World-Wide Web at <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~grassie>

This report was prepared by Dr. William Grassie, Visiting Lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania and Assistant Professor in the Intellectual Heritage Program at Temple University. Dr. Grassie can be reached at <grassie@voicenet.com>.

1) Syllabus and Readings



Students were asked to assess the value of each of the books used in the course. Students were also ask to estimate how much of the assigned readings they actually completed. It is important for teachers to realize that even at university of Penn's caliber, there is a notable trend in undergraduate education towards the non-reading and non-purchase of course materials. Anonymous survey would indicate that only about 60 percent of the assigned readings were completed by the students (the range being from 0 to 100 percent). Students tend to be better readers at the beginning of the semester and to read less towards the end of the semester. Professors are confronted with the dilemma of teaching to the text or teaching to the audience.


The syllabus was organized into four units:
1) We began with an introduction to studying religion and science, which was based on Barbour's chapters one and two.


2) We moved on to consider comparative interpretations of the modern scientific cosmology, which was based on the parallel reading of Barbour, the Scientific American special edition on Life in the Universe, and Berry and Swimme's Universe Story.


3) We then considered new social critical studies of the biophysical sciences (feminist, non-Western, and economic), as a way of exploring the subjective elements of science and raising important epistemological questions in the dialogue between science and religion.


4) We concluded with a consideration of how future developments in science, technology, and culture may change our understanding of science and the sacred.


Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science: This was one of the main books of the semester. It set the rigorous philosophical standards and scope of encyclopedic knowledge necessary to engage in a serious science and religion dialogue. Unfortunately, it was also one of the least popular books among the students. While some called it "phenomenal" and "excellent" and asked that "more time should be spent on this", most students were overwhelmed and lost with this new theological, scientific, and philosophical language and name-dropping. So Barbour was also described as "too informative" and "the least enjoyable book we read." And while it was also described as "way too dry", it was recognized as "a necessary evil," one that "covered a lot of bases." One student wrote wistfully that "maybe I'll understand it 10 years down the road."

Change: Next time I will substitute Science and Religion: A Critical Survey by Holmes Rolston, III, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987. Rolston write beautifully while covering the same expanse as Barbour. Rolston also deals equitably with multiple religious traditions, but then candidly explores his own Christian faith at the end. Rolston also give a sympathetic account of process theology (Barbour's own bottom line), but ends up rejecting it for a kind of Christian Neo-Orthodoxy, so this provides a helpful counterpoint to the next book in the syllabus. Barbour could still be used as a follow-on to Rolston.



Berry & Swimme, The Universe Story: The Catholic priest historian, Thomas Berry, and Native American mathematical cosmologist, Brian Swimme, teamed up to write this mythic and allegorical retelling of the modern scientific cosmology. This book is undergirded with Whiteheadean process metaphysics [much like Barbour] and is graced with prose reminiscent of Loren Eisley [very much unlike Barbour]. This was one of the most popular books of the semester [see also Kevin Kelly]. Many wrote in superlatives: "I loved this book" and "I loved this so much - I read it twice!"
There were others, of course, who were more skeptical. Some wrote that it was "too flaky" or "too florid." One noted that it was "the opposite end of the spectrum from Barbour," and wondered if "maybe an in between book could be found." [The same student found the Scientific American edition as "too technical."]
A student wrote that Berry and Swimme were "a little corny at times, but their excitement about the whole existence deal is kind of contagious." And while one scientifically minded student believed that they "confused too much fiction with 'hard' facts in an unclear fashion to suite my taste and experience." Even the skeptics were glad to have been exposed to the book, noting in the words of one that "it was still very interesting and enjoyable to read nonetheless."

Changes: Spend more time on this book. Don't do a parallel reading, as this proved confusing to many of the students. Maybe begin with this and reconsider it at the end of the semester.


Scientific American Special Issue: This special edition on "Life in the Universe" includes essays from prominent scientists like Steven Weinberg, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and Marvin Minsky. This text provided a contrast to Barbour, Berry and Swimme in their discussion of the modern scientific cosmology. Few read this, finding it difficult to follow, nor was it emphasized in class, except by way of contrast. One student wrote: "The sciences being my forte, I enjoyed this the most." Another reflected the professor's intentions that "the readings seemed to supplement the other books that we were reading at the time very well."


Genesis Chapter 1-9: After completing a survey of the modern scientific cosmology and competing interpretations of it, we returned to briefly reconsider religious cosmologies. We re-read the beginning of Genesis, paying particular attention to chapters 1-4. After a brief introduction in class to contemporary historical and linguistic scholarship on the Creation stories, we focused on chapters 2-3 (the lecture series included a talk by Dr. Norbert Samuelson on Genesis 1 that same day.) I led a role-play of the Garden of Eden. Students' evaluations focused especially on our impromptu dramatic reenactment of the primordial family of the Judeo-Christian scriptures.

There were lots of positive comments about the Genesis role-play and the animated discussions from that day would mark it as one of the high points of the semester. One of the Wharton students noted that the role play was a "great idea that I've only seen in management classes." Of course, not everyone was pleased. One student didn't like hearing uninformed students improvising on the Bible and another expressed personal frustration about not participating more. Another student wrote:
"I'm not sure the role play was that beneficial. Maybe it's because it didn't really turn out the way you expected or wanted it to. However, I can honestly say that I can't come up with a better method."
So everyone seemed to have gotten over their Sunday School introductions to this story and came to recognize that Genesis 2-3 "raised a lot of pertinent questions." In the future, though, I will have to focus more on Genesis 1 (which I neglected in favor of Dr. Samuelson's presentation in the lecture series.) Some students voiced a desire to have more religious texts in the course.


Tao Teh Ching: I wanted to include a non-theistic religious cosmology to supplement our consideration of Genesis, so the classic from Lao Tzu was an obvious choice. We didn't spend enough time on this reading either. Here too, there were lots of positive comments like "I loved this book" and "very important reading." Another student wrote, "I thought this book was essential for both the course and for personal peace of mind." A few students noted that one day on Taoism was "close to tokenism" and that more effort was required for Westerners to gain an appreciation of Eastern philosophy.
Students seemed hungry for more religious readings, as reflected in the comment: "I had never read anything similar to it before and I found it to be very interesting and fulfilling."
Another student reflected a recurrent theme in the evaluations, the desire to have more religious training in the course: "Actually it would have been cool to read more scriptures in the class in general."

Change: Consider refocusing the next unit of the course on comparative cosmologies, perhaps by using the anthology Primal Myths: Creation Myth's Around the World by Barbara C. Sproul, San Francisco: Harper, 1979. In any case, spend more time on Genesis and the Tao. Include the introduction to the Gospel of John for a Christian cosmological vision. Use class listserv to give assigned writing topics.


Merchant, The Death of Nature This book broke new ground in 1980 by using feminist and ecological critical perspectives to reassess the period of the European Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution (1500 - 1700 c.e.). It provides both a historical and philosophical overview of this important period in European history and a critique of the mechanistic and materialist ideology and metaphors of modern science. Not enough time was spent on the book. Students mostly didn't read the book. Students also had a hard time understanding what this book had to do with religion, because they continued to have a narrow definition of religion. One student wrote "I thought this book was excellent, but I'm still not sure how it fit into the class." Another was grateful for the "different viewpoint" and found it "really interesting." But many were critical of what they perceived to be "p.c." readings that "are only necessary to show that science can also be a subjective experience." As this was the week of midterms and prior to spring break, the percentages of those who actually read the assignments dropped significantly.

Change: Focus assigned readings on the latter half of the book, instead of the first half. While it is an excellent book, it is perhaps too much to take on the history of science in this course along with cosmological interpretations. Drop this book.


Harding, "Racial" Economy of Science This excellent anthology, edited by philosopher of science Sandra Harding, addresses the issues of race and ethnicity distortions within the sciences. At this point in the semester, students were doing group presentations on the readings, so the dynamic of the class changed dramatically (see below.) Except for those doing the presentations though, most did not read the assignments. Here too, there was a lot of resistance to the concepts from some, because it was perceived as "unpleasant." A student wrote that it was "interesting in that it brought up some major issues in biogenetics, about government influence, the economy, etc. -- but the idea of compartmentalization and stereotypes expressed by the authors and in the title is a little off-putting." Another student wrote "HATED IT!... I agree with what Harding was trying to get us to think about, but what am I supposed to do? I feel the future is unwritten." Another found the book to be "good" although wasn't clear on how it fit in with the course, this in spite of the professor's efforts to connect the material. There were lots of opportunities to connect science and religion through epistemological, social, and ethical reflections, but students seem ill-prepared to follow such leads.

Change: Pre-select chapters and focus discussion on maybe six selections total. Stay away from those chapters that employ leftist rhetoric (I was also turned off by some of the chapters.) In the revised syllabus, though, I would probably drop this book because the course is trying to do too much.


Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, Women : We read chapters eight and nine from Haraway's award-winning collection of essays. At this point we were moving into unit four on "future possibilities," but most students saw this as continuous with the unit on race and gender. Haraway offers postmodernist and socialist-feminist accounts of science and social transformation that make most feminist and socialist uncomfortable. In any case, this is graduate level reading. Most students didn't even try to read the selections. Those that did found it "completely inaccessible." Another wrote that "if I could actually have understood a word she was saying, I have a feeling I would've loved it, but I was completely lost from the first sentence."

Change: Budget more time to read these selections. Work through sections in class in small groups to help students learn how to understand and critique the content. Use Phillip Johnson's Reason in the Balance, Inter Varsity Press, 1995, as ideological counterpoint and philosophical mirror image of Haraway.

Kelly, Out of Control: Kelly is the executive editor of WIRED Magazine, so he is well positioned to engage in journalistic readings of future possibilities in the emergent present. He offers a kind of postmodern theology of nature that is conversant with the cutting edge of complexity theory, robotics, artificial evolution, virtual reality, neuro-nets, artificial intelligence, genetic engineer, environmental restoration, computer networking, and market capitalism. "The Nine Laws of God" are Kevin Kelly's attempt to metatheorize natural and cybernetic creativity in his paradigm shifting book, which is subtitled The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World. This book, along with Berry and Swimme's Universe Story, was the most popular book that we read.
One student wrote: "Over all I thought this was the best book in the class. Although I still think G= H-ST and believe in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I agree that somehow we must get 'order for free.'" Another wrote that it was "a great book and a good conclusion to the course." Another student wrote "This was the best book we read by far -- accessible, original, entertaining, humorous, the product of an active and motivated imagination, and very pertinent to the class."

Change: Assign a selection of six chapters that everyone reads, in addition to the group presentations. Spend more time on this book. Assign essay comparing Out of Control and the Universe Story and the function of natural theology in both works.


Was the course coherently integrated?
What would you identify as the main themes of the course?

Students varied in their reflections on the course. Some could reflect back the professor's and authors' metanarratives, while others were just confused about what science and religion had to do with each other. Some wanted more historical, more comparative religious, and more conflictual readings and discussions. On one extreme, a student writes:
"I don't think that the course was coherently integrated at all. When I told my friends that I was taking this course, they asked me what it was about and I couldn't even answer their question. At the beginning of the course, I did all of the readings and I still have no idea what the main themes were."

On the other extreme, a student writes:
"I thought the course was coherently integrated. We covered a lot but only once or twice was I left wondering "how does this relate?" perhaps the largest thing I got from the class was not to be so narrow-minded as to dismiss others' points of view just because it's not what I'm used to..."

Change: Less is more. Repetition is necessary. Work a chronological unfolding of a dialogue between texts, rather than a concurrent reading. Be aware that the science and religion dialogue opens up so much territory that it is easy for a person to get lost.

TOP HOME

2) Pedagogy


The course made use of a number of innovative educational methods from group projects and role-plays to extensive use of computer presentation technology and the Internet. The uses of technology will be assessed in section three of this report. This section focus on other aspects of the pedagogical structure of the class.

Grade Structure


Grading was based on the distributions listed below. This was discussed on the first day of class, the rationale for the proposed distributions were explained by me, and the distributions were revised slightly according to student input. This course syllabus thus took on more of the character of a social contract between the students.
attendance -- 10 percent
e-mail -- 40 percent
individual projects -- 10 percent
1# group projects -- 10 percent
2# group project -- 10 percent
final exam -- 20 percent


Change: Divert some of the 40 percent e-mail assessment to 4 assigned discussion papers during the semester (see below).

Attendance and Participation


Attendance was taken every day by students pulling name tags off sheets of labels. This served to identify everyone by name tag as well as keep role. We did devote class time to a name-learning activity, but this was not sufficient. Students also grew increasingly sloppy about arriving on time. Several students had significant absentee records.

Change: For the first month of class in addition to the name tags, it would also have been helpful to verbally take role, so that students could better learn each others names as well. Attendance should be weighted more heavily, with penalties included for late arrivals. Set higher standards for attendance and promptness. Don't offer course at UPenn at 9:00 am. Continue the use of name tags and other activities to promote student fellowship and personal contact.

Group Projects


There were a number of group projects for which students could sign-up. They were each required to complete two projects. The projects included two person teams to write up reviews of the eight talks in the public lecture series, a four person team to write up a glossary of key terms in the science and religion dialogue, and teams of three to four people to do in class presentations from the Harding anthology and from the Kelly book. Students really appreciated the in-class group presentations. One student wrote that the group projects were
"Definitely valuable. They were fun -- they made us read, they kind of brought us together. I think it is a direct result of these projects that I have so many more friends as I do coming out of this class. This was a great idea."
Another student wrote that "they were valuable in trying to learn how to teach yourself. Rarely do students get to be the fountain rather than the sponge."

The group projects that students raved about were the in-class presentations., so let me focus on those. Students were given a range of chapters to work on. They were given a great deal of freedom as to how to structure the presentations. For instance, whether to review all the chapters or to focus on only one or two was a live question. Whether to do presentations or to break up into small groups was an open question. It seems that students respond well to being given responsibility and authority for their education. Most had positive peer experiences preparing their presentations. Some complained about group members who did not carry their weight. Many complained that being an audience for someone else's presentation was not always interesting or informative. Few read material in preparation for someone else's group project, but at least they read their own presentation materials. Many of the groups came up with creative discussion questions and small group exercises, but ran into time crunch. Each group received a five minute written evaluation from the audience and wrote their own self-assessment with the help of this feedback.

Change: Run group projects on a weekly basis throughout the semester. Groups of four are optimum. Assign groups randomly. Do only one group project per class session. Engage their presentation with many more focused questions. Make sure that everyone get a first and second chance to present.

Individual Projects


Students were also given a free reign on defining their individual projects. They were invited to write a research paper or a poem, to create some piece of artwork or to compose a credo. The only criteria given was that their project should be something that they would be proud to share with the class and anyone who logged on to the class web site. These were graded solely on bases of completion.
Some disliked the open-ended nature of the assignment. One called it "bogus." Another student thought that "they needed stricter requirements," but confessed that "I did learn a lot from my project." Many appreciated the chance to define the agenda themselves, but were stumped by what they should do with that freedom. A student wrote:
"I thought and thought and thought and you get the point. It made me think about all the different things I could do. Eventually it made me think about what I believe in. I had to really take a look at where I put my faith."


Change: Try to build more of an exchange of ideas and creations among students. Perhaps have two rounds of individual projects, as a way to promote discussion and interaction. Maintain the open-ended self-definition of the projects.

Lectures


Students were asked to assess the professor's lectures and the use of computer projection technology to support those lectures. Some complained that the lectures were too long or that I re-used "mumbo-jumbo" terminology that they didn't understand from the readings. Most indicated that more discussion time was desired. Others found the lectures "effective" and "especially for material that is difficult to understand -- some things needed to be explained and properly framed." Another confessed that "the lectures were bad, because I don't think I read enough in preparation."
Most thought that the use of the computer projection added something to the clarity, but there were others who found it to be "a distraction" or that "the computer projection did nothing for me." Others appreciated a way to "visually follow" the talk and get "the main points that might have been overlooked." Some even recognized the extraordinary amount of time that was involved in producing an attractive computer-supported lecture and expressed concern about it's value given the professor's time constraints.

Change: While I enjoyed the opportunity to work with this "smart" classroom and become comfortable with the equipment and the software, I do not think that computer-supported lectures promotes student interaction and involvement. The screen tends to put students into a passive, note-taking mode, rather than in a participatory-dialogical mode. So while this technology has the capacity to greatly enhance the traditional lecture, my educational philosophy does not view the traditional lecture as very effective pedagogy. People learn more when they are asked to be active participants in processing information, solving problems, and taking positions. Also it needs to be said that the effort involved in preparing an attractive computer presentation is substantial. I will be glad to use this in formal lecture situations, but unlikely to use this technology in my regular teaching.

Class Discussions


Most classes involved some aspect of discussion. Often I would break the class-up into small groups with a selection from our text for that day and some discussion questions. Students appreciated this and requested more. One student wrote: "Class discussions were crucial and interesting, though I much prefer our small group discussion to large discussion..." Another student helps to contextualize the issue within the larger university experience:
"MORE, MORE, MORE -- this was the best thing in the class. I looked forward to these. When I go to Chem 241, Phys 151, Math 240, or Anthro 101, all we do is sit on our bottoms and copy notes. I got much more out of the class from the discussions."
Many students, however, complained about the over-active participation of two auditors in particular, who tended to dominate large and small group discussions. Students, for their part, were not always well-prepared for such discussions, nor did they necessarily exercise the leadership responsibilities given them in small groups

Change: Continue to use small group discussions as an integral part of class. Break students into groups upon arriving. Have more flow back and forth between small group and large group (at least two cycles per class.) Isolate auditors in their own group. Teach discussion leadership skills by using several "fish-bowl" small group simulations in the beginning of semester.

TOP HOME





3) Uses of the Internet

E-mail and Class-Based Listserv


All students were required to post "response papers" as e-mail to a class-listserv on a weekly basis. I have been using this technique quite successfully for two years now in my regular teaching at Temple University. There is much that I could say about this technique. Let me just note that it tends to empower students to share thoughts and perspectives, much more so than what ordinarily happens in a traditional classroom. A student wrote that "e-mail was great -- everyone could speak out, even the shy ones!" Another spoke of the e-mail as "absolutely crucial" to the course, calling it "the heart and soul of the course." Another wrote "I loved the e-mail discussion; there were a lot of things I said over e-mail that I would have never said in class." Another student wrote:
"The e-mail discussions were great for random ideas and more personal topics that were not directly raised by the reading material. However, there were many, many messages to read -- perhaps smaller e-mail groups would be better. Definitely keep it though -- it provides an outlet for the questions we have on a private, less scholastic level."
So while the e-mail component of the course was important to many, it also had its detractors. With 38 participants the class generated an oppressive quantity of mail. While many students enjoyed the virtual conversation, they were also burdened by mail. Some students resented the lack of focus and tangential discussions that occurred on e-mail. Several suggested that the professor be more directive about the discussion.
I would agree with many of the criticisms. Students had a remarkable knack for avoiding discussing our reading assignments. There were many great discussions though that did express "the heart and soul of the course." Change: Restrict postings on certain weeks to assigned subjects that relate directly to our reading assignments. Grade these postings separately. Break the class up into groups of no more than 15 per listserv. Cross-post provocative and insightful messages to other small groups. Rearrange small groups twice during the semester to re-mix students.

Use of World-Wide Web:


The class had a web page which was set up as a place to publicize the course and lecture series and to provide a resource for students. Few students made use of the web page. Some consulted it when they had loss their syllabus. Most changes to the web page were made at the beginning and end of the semester, so there was very lie new content to catch-up on. The "cool" factor was appreciated by some students. Two students even submitted web pages as their individual projects. But for the most part, the web was not used by students in the class, in spite of the fact that the University of Pennsylvania is one of the most connected campuses in the U.S. The web page, however, has received a lot of hits from outside of Penn, suggesting that there is an audience interested in this model and in this subject. The web page provides an useful resource to others in the Science and Religion Course Program, because anyone can consult it to see this report and other aspects of how the course was designed.

Change: Continue to post new material to the course web page throughout the semester, so as to make it more of a focal point for class information and communication. Develop online research projects.

TOP HOME



4) Class Assessment


Students were asked to assess their own motivations, expectations, and participation in the course. They were also asked to assess their classmates and the professor.

Self Assessment


Some took the course in order to fulfill their undergraduate distribution requirements, while others took it to explore their own beliefs and knowledge about the science and religion interface. There were a lot of folks trying to figure out their own beliefs. In a rich mix, we were committed and non-committed, practicing and non-practicing, religious and non-religious. We were a very diverse group -- many Christian (Evangelicals, Catholic, and Liberal Protestant), some Jews (Conservative and Secular), a few Muslims, and at least one Buddhist mixed-background.
A student wrote:
"I consider myself to be both logical and religious/mystical and have established a dialogue between the two for myself. I took the course because I was interested in other viewpoints on the topic and in raising more questions about how religion and science change both together and as separate 'institutions.'"
Many students said that the course did not meet their expectations, because they had expected to learn more about different religions. This was not necessarily bad, because many of these students will go on to take courses in the Department of Religious Studies. Many were pleasantly surprised. The course motivated one to be "more in touch with myself and my beliefs." Another wrote:
"Did the course fulfill my expectations? MORE, I thought I would come into the class and sit on by duff and write a paper at the end. Instead I interacted with by classmates and did a huge introspective overhaul at the end of class."
Another student wrote:
"This course fulfilled my expectations in that it broadened my perspectives and brought me to recognize the personal responsibility everyone has to the future of a changing world."

Most students were critical of their own participation and contributions to the class, feeling that they had been too reticent to speak up in class or too lack about keeping up with the readings.

Change: Do a formal goal-setting exercise around the fourth week. Share those goals in small groups and on the listserv. Link goal-setting to individual and/or group project topics. Make minor adjustments to syllabus to reflect new goals. Reassess the goals at the end of the semester.

Peer Assessment


Most students were quite generous in assessing the contributions of their fellow classmates, though their were some very harsh comments directed towards two of the adult auditors who tend to dominate class-discussions and had to be frequently interrupted by the professor.
One student noted that the classmates had been a learning resource to them, because "every such interaction is an unique experience." Another wrote that "the people in the class were probably the best resource." Another wrote that "classmates taught me how strong the religious influence is in life today which I had taken for granted." Another wrote:
"I thought that the classmates and the 'older folk' were just as crucial to the course as the reading material. Without the exchange of personal perspectives, ideas and applications, the course would seem dry and empty."

Change: Peer evaluation went on continuously in the informal e-mail conversations. There was some formal peer evaluation in the in-class presentations. Opportunities for peer evaluation could be extended to small group discussions held in "fish bowl" format at the beginning of the semester.

Final Grades


This was an average grade distribution. A difficult final exam with twelve short answer essays provided one of the main differentiation measurements.

Final Grade Distribution for 34 Students:

A+ 0
A 1
A- 13
B+ 5
B 6
B- 7
C- 2

TOP HOME



5) Teacher Assessment

Students were asked to assess Professor Grassie's classroom leadership. In particular, they were directed to make suggestions for improvements to be made and strengths to build upon in his future teaching endeavors. A selection of comments are grouped accordingly below:

IMPROVEMENTS
- Restructure the course and lectures.
- Explain philosophical terminology; use smaller words.
- Assert authority in silencing excessive talkers.
- Do less high-tech.
- Remind students about assignments.
- Direct the e-mail conversation more; use formal topic assignments.
- Take a stand; students need to know where you come out.
- Need to create more coherence in the metathemes of the course.
- Less talking in class.

STRENGTHS
- Diverse methods of teaching.
- Promoted interaction; fostered discussion.
- Never made us feel inferior for being less knowledgeable.
- Extremely well-educated and he shows it, but is accessible.
- Interrupted excessive talkers.
- Caring and tolerant of all views.
- Worked very hard; amazing effort put into the class.
- Brought different perspectives to the forum.
- Got people to think about relevant information.
- Came at a "soft" subject with a very firm academic approach.
- Established a sense of perspective on the main themes.
- Brought the class back to focus when it strayed too far.

Professor's Self-Assessment

I obviously put a lot of effort into my teaching in general and into this class in particular. It was difficult managing my time with some of my other commitments to Temple University and my family. In retrospect, the lecture series took away from energy that I could have put into the class, though it contributed something to the public life of the University (see below). In retrospect, the computer-assisted lectures took away from class participation. In retrospect, I can say that we tried to do too much in the syllabus. Indeed, I warned the students on the first day of class that if they wanted easy classes, they should stay away from junior faculty and first time courses. I warned the students that I had what the Buddhist call "the stench of Enlightenment," which means that I was too eager and too ambitious in my plans and expectations. The Buddhists recognize that this excessive enthusiasm mellows with time.
So I believe I've made a significant contribution to the my students and the Department. I've learned a lot and had fun too. I gained lots of practical experience working with computer applications and lots of intellectual gain in working with the books. There is more that I wished I had accomplished in the background reading. I really enjoyed getting to know a fabulous group of students, the wonderful adult auditors, and others at the University of Pennsylvania. I'll give myself an "A" for effort and a "B+" for first time implementation. I look forward to teaching this course again with less effort and still do an even better job by my students and the University. I am grateful for this wonderful opportunity and thrilled to engage in this curious discipline of relating science and religion.

TOP HOME



6) Public Lecture Series



The College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania made the entire $5,000 institutional grant available to the Department of Religious Studies for course development and enrichment. With such funds available, it was possible for the Department with Professor Grassie's leadership to put together an impressive eight-part lecture series to supplement the course. The lectures were scheduled for the 5:00 to 6:30 pm, so as to be attractive to the larger Penn and Philadelphia commuting-community.

The lecture series covered numerous faith traditions and scientific disciplines. The series was organized to be a traveling affair, such that it would move from different locations on campus and promote outreach through the different campus ministries. An attractive brochure was designed by me and circulated widely on campus (ca. 800 copies total printed and distributed). Notices were placed in the campus newspapers. News stories also ran in the campus newspaper and in the newsletter of the Metropolitan Christian Council. An article placed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, however, neglected to make mention of the lecture series.

The lecture series attracted on average audiences of 25 to 30 people, with a low of 10 and a high of 40. Though not bad by Penn standards, this poor attendance may not have justified the expenditure of effort. It was especially unfortunate that students were mostly unable to attend due to busy extra-curricular commitments. So the lecture series mostly served a different audience than the course. Every lecture was attended by three to eight students from the class, as well as almost all of the class auditors. Two students also had the assignment of writing a joint report on the talk, which was then circulated by e-mail and posted on the class home page.

Money was divert from the budget to experiment with paid advertising in the Daily Pennsylvanian for the second and third lectures. These were also the best attended of the talks in the series. Unfortunately, the lack of funds meant that such advertising could not be sustained. The diversion of funds into advertising also meant as well that Professor Grassie had to forego reimbursements for some of his expenses at the end of the semester.

Some lectures were more accessible than others. Some lectures were more dynamic than others. As a whole, the series presented an impressive array of speakers and topics both from within and outside of the Penn community.

The lecture series, along with the faithful participation of five adult auditors, including a full professor from the Veterinary School, did add some larger relevance which animated the in-class experience and gave the course and the subject a higher profile in the University of Pennsylvania community.

For speaker backgrounds and student reports, see the class homepage at <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~grassie/Lectures.html>.

Science and the Sacred
Public Lecture Series

Sponsored by the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania
with support from the John Templeton Foundation

All talks will take place from 5:00 to 6:30 PM and are free and open to the public.

February 8 , 1996 - Thursday
Dr. Mark Richardson, Science and Religion Program Director, John Templeton Foundation, "Science and Religion in Dialogue", Penn Hillel, 202 South 36th St.


February 21, 1996 - Wednesday
Dr. M. Susan Lindee, History and Sociology of Science and Technology, University of Pennsylvania, "Sacred DNA: Identity, Immortality and the Human Genome Project", Penn Christian Association, 3601 Locust Walk.


February 27, 1996 - Tuesday
Dr. Norbert Samuelson, Jewish Studies and Philosophy of Religion, Temple University, "Judaism and the Doctrine of Creation", Penn Hillel, 202 South 36th St.


March 5, 1996 - Tuesday
Dr. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Princeton Theological Seminary, "Deconstructing the Postmodern Challenge to Science and Religion", Houston Hall, Bodek Lounge, 3417 Spruce St.


March 28, 1996 - Thursday
Dr. Khalid Blankenship, Islamic Studies, Temple University, "Islam, Modernity, and Postmodernity" , Houston Hall, Bodek Lounge, 3417 Spruce St.


April 10, 1996 - Wednesday
Dr. Eugene D'Aquili, Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, "Neuropsychology of Reality or Why God Won't Go Away", Penn Newman Center, 3720 Chestnut St.


April 18, 1996 - Thursday
Dr. Beverly Rubik, Founding Director, Center for Frontier Sciences , "Towards a Science of Love and Prayer", Penn Newman Center, 3720 Chestnut St.


April 25, 1996 - Thursday
Dr. Sol Katz, Professor of Physical Anthropology, Krogman Growth Center, University of Pennsylvania, "New Perspectives on the Interface between Science and Religion" , Penn Christian Association, 3601 Locust Walk.

TOP HOME



7) Follow-up


TOP HOME



Appendices

1) Course Promotional Brochure (not available online)
2) Course Syllabus
3) Lecture Series Brochures (not available online)
4) Newspaper Coverage (not available online)
5) Final Exam and Answers
6) Budget and Expenditures (not available online)

TOP HOME

HOME | REQUIREMENTS | BOOKS | LECTURES
PROFESSOR | STUDENTS | RESEARCH | SYLLABUS