Print

Print


Thanks for this, Phil. My proposal assumes two conditions, which I realize
do not always hold but I think do in a large number of high school
situations:

1. The teacher controls what is taught and presented in the classroom, not
creationists.

2. The teacher's intention is to teach evolution, not creationism.

If these conditions are met, then the pedagogical approach used in the study
I cite in the IHT piece, called engaging prior belief and developed by
educational theorist William G. Perry, could be effective. Here are some
more details about that study, from the American Institute of Biological
Sciences press release about it. A few details of the study were corrected
in a followup issue, but the conclusions remained the same. Not that Craig
Nelson says this approach would be inappropriate for high school, but I
don't agree with that. I think it could be adapted, and give arguments in
the IHT piece as to why.

Engaging prior learning on creationism and evolution may benefit college
biology students Reading books sympathetic to and opposed to evolution
supported increased acceptance of rationalist views An educational
intervention that included reading books sympathetic to and opposed to
"intelligent design" (ID) prompted students in a college introductory
biology course to report that they had become more accepting of evolution as
an explanation for life, according to a study in the November 2005 issue of
BioScience. The intervention, which was studied by Steven D. Verhey of
Central Washington University, encouraged students to read parts of an
ID-friendly, anti-evolution text, as well as an online refutation of the
text and parts of a book presenting evidence for evolution.

Students in the study's two intervention streams read from "Icons of
Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, which attacks evolutionary theory and is
sympathetic to ID, and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which
supports the theory of evolution. Students in the intervention streams also
read "Icons of Obfuscation" by Nic Tamzek, an online refutation of Wells'
book, and discussed current thinking about the nature of science. Students
in the two non-intervention streams read from and discussed "The Red Queen:
Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" by Matt Ridley, which describes
evolutionary explanations for sexuality.

Verhey asked the 103 enrolled students to classify their beliefs about
evolution and creationism before and after the course. Most of the 66
students who completed the survey had previously been exposed to both
evolutionary and creationist accounts of life. Sixty-one percent of students
in the intervention streams reported some change in their beliefs; most of
these students were initially sympathetic to creationist explanations and
moved toward increased acceptance of evolution. Only 21 percent of students
in the non-intervention streams reported change in their beliefs.

Verhey's study was inspired by an influential theory of cognitive
development advanced in 1970 by William G. Perry. Perry's theory holds that
students pass through distinct modes of thinking. Verhey's intervention was
designed to support students as they progressed toward a more sophisticated
cognitive mode by engaging them at the level of their initial
understanding--including their initial ideas about creationism. Although
alternative explanations are possible, Verhey maintains that his results
suggest engaging prior learning "was an effective approach to evolution
education."

BioScience is the monthly journal of the American Institute of Biological
Sciences (AIBS). In an editorial commenting on Verhey's article, prominent
evolution educator Craig E. Nelson asks how Verhey's "effective pedagogy" is
to be reconciled with the strong stance of AIBS--and Nelson himself--against
requiring the teaching of ID or creationism in high-school science classes.
A large majority of biologists believe ID, which holds that evolution cannot
explain life's complexity, is fundamentally unscientific. Nelson points out
that teaching ID or creationism in a science class would be wrong unless
these notions were critiqued scientifically and compared to evolutionary
explanations. As many high-school teachers are not well prepared to
rigorously contrast creationist and evolutionary accounts, Nelson writes
that it would be "quite inappropriate to require such comparisons in high
school." But encouraging active comparisons by college and university
students will, according to Nelson, "help future teachers and other leaders
understand why there is no contest scientifically between creationism and
evolution."




On 2/28/07, Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I fished out my copy of Kitcher and refreshed my memory of his discussion.
> He does say one thing that echoes Michael's proposal:
>
> "Important purposes may be served by exposing the differences between
> science and pseudoscience, by showing ... how Creation 'science'
> consistently falls short of the standards required of the genuine article."
>
> However, he then goes on to say:
>
> "What is in doubt is the possiblity of a fair and complete presentation of
> the issues ... in the context of the high school classroom... Creationists
> scatter their criticisms, using whatever ammunition they can find. Even a
> gifted teacher would not be able to expound enough of the scientific
> background to make it clear that all the salvos miss the mark.
>
> "What Creationists really propose is a situation in which people without
> scientific training—fourteen-year-old students, for example—are asked to
> decide a complex issue on partial evidence. Creationists ... can make enough
> criticisms to prevent a biology teacher from identifying all the errors. In
> short, they can muddy clear waters.
>
> "Students would be indoctrinated if they were offered a single view as
> authoritative when rival views were equally well confirmed by the available
> evidence. Nothing like indoctrination occurs when the best-supported account
> of the origin and development of life is presented for what it is."
>
> --PG
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.michaelbalter.com
> >
> > ******************************************
> > Michael Balter
> > Contributing Correspondent, Science
> > [log in to unmask]
> > ******************************************
>
>
>


-- 
www.michaelbalter.com

******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
[log in to unmask]
******************************************