Teachers Back Away From Evolution In Class 947
RedEaredSlider writes "A study (abstract) from Penn State shows that a lot of teachers — some 60 percent — are reluctant to teach evolutionary theory in the classroom either because they fear controversy or they just aren't comfortable with the material (as not every biology teacher was a science major). It shows the importance, the authors say, of training teachers well before they step into the class."
Re:Not a science major? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's probably because most science majors don't go into teaching. From what limited information I gleaned from some of my friends who are teachers, a lot of them have some sort of general education degree rather than a specialized background. Unlike other developed countries (especially the ones who kick our butts in education), we don't recruit teachers from the top of the graduating classes in their fields, which is why we have such terrible science education.
Teachers want to keep their jobs! (Score:5, Interesting)
[my wife is a teacher (15 years teaching), she's just glad she's got an engineer husband to support her teaching habit... I'm just an enabler, I guess]
Credentials. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's almost like shuttling weak students who are afraid of math and science into teacher training programs was a BAD idea.
(Disclaimer: I'm employed by a college with a tremendous population of education majors.)
Exaggerating the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
From TFA:
Teachers who are unable or unwilling to teach the theory of evolution in biology might be one reason U.S. students are falling behind in science, according to new research. [. . .] The findings come at a time when the national Center for Education Statistics, a part of the U.S. Department of Education, released findings that said only 21 percent of students in grade 12 scored at or above "proficient" in 2009, with 60 percent reaching the level of "basic."
First off, bad reporting -- what are those statistics referring to? When we go to the NCES website, we find this is referring to science performance in general. This trend in biology teachers is distressing, but I'm not sure bad teaching of evolutionary teaching is resulting in 88% of students not achieving high marks in, say, physical sciences, earth sciences, etc. NCES itself notes immediately after the statistic in its own report [ed.gov]:
Twelfth-graders who reported taking biology, chemistry, and physics scored higher than students taking less advanced science coursework.
In other words, students who take more science and harder science do better on science tests. Duh. I'm not sure the teaching of evolutionary theory is even on the map compared to problems like students not taking science, not being interested in science, and probably poor science teaching in general, particularly in the low-level science electives for students not taking real bio, chem, or physics. I taught high school math and science for a few years, and I can definitely say that the teachers assigned to teach these dumbed-down science courses were some of the worst in the school -- often coaches or people with science degrees or related degrees who weren't able to find a job doing anything else because their skills were so poor.
Is the teaching of evolution a problem? Sure. But I'm not willing to believe it is even in the top 20 causes for these students performing poorly on tests of scientific knowledge in general.
Show us the evidence of evolution! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've spent many years learing about evolutionary theory. It seems quite intuitive to me. But it isn't intuitive to many people because it's unlike anything they observe normally. Among scientists, evolution isn't controvercial, but among others, it is. Therefore, others need more convincing. But telling them to "just believe because you're an idiot if you don't" is just religion. To most people, evolution vs. something else is just a war between factions. There's no science in it. And while religion remains relatively stable, evolutionary theory keeps changing; what's "true" one day is "false" the next. The way that evolution is taught is partly responsible for this controversy.
I'm sure it exists, but I've never been able to find it; there's something that would really help: An up-to-date complete treatise of all the basic evidence that demonstrates the foundations of evolutionary theory. Observations of microevolution in the lab, sequences of fossils and how they were dated and how we're certain that they're from the same lineage, numerous clear examples, multiple convergent lines of evidence (fossils vs. dna), etc. In science class, they don't teach this. They teach the end results of the science as though it were FACT, but it's NOT. It is a fact that it's a good theory, but the theory itself cannot be deemed fact.
I have a little girl, and I don't want to just tell her "evolution is true, and those creationists are idiots." I want to show her the science. Besides, its misleading to say that "evolution is true". Evolutionary fact observed in the lab is true. Evolutionary theory is a MODEL that we STRIVE to MAKE true and is the best model we currently have. If it were TRUE, we'd be done. No more to discover. Rather, it is a gradually improving approximation.
Re:Not a science major? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:oh noes (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm trying hard to read this as more than a complaint that "Oh noes, my pet-theory/favourite-subject isn't being taught as much as I think it should"
The general form of the story is well known.
In this case it is a scientific theory so scientists see it as bad for future science.
It could just as easily be engineers claiming about the poor quality of mathematics teaching, or CS professors complaining about the lack of independent thinking.
However, my view is that it is down to the parents to do the teaching, and to delegate to schools as they see fit, and also to make up the difference.
No-group has a right to have their pet subjects taught to children. Except the gubbernment, of course.
But- they are allowed to whine and make a noise about it.
The idea behind the public school system is, at least in theory, to give everyone the basic knowledge necessary to function in the world.
People need to be able to read, they need to be able to write, they need to be able to do math. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of classic literature because so much of the modern world is built upon it. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of history, they need to have some understanding of how our government works, they need to have a basic understanding of science.
We consider it fairly normal to know that the heart pumps blood around your body, for example. It may not be necessary to know exactly how many bones are in the human body, or be able to name them... But it's a good idea to know that humans have bones, and worms do not.
Obviously, individual families and parents are going to impart their own wisdom along the way... Or, at least we hope they will. But the whole point of a public school system with expectations and requirements is to establish a baseline of sorts. A foundation to build upon.
Now, you can certainly argue that any particular bit of education is or isn't necessary... Do folks really need to learn geometry? Is it essential to read Romeo and Juliet? Do we have to teach evolution?
I would argue that the scientific method - the process of testing and refining a hypothesis until you've got something useful - is absolutely essential. It's the foundation of the entire modern world. And without a grasp of the scientific method you're going to have a hard time establishing critical thinking skills.
And I would also argue that evolution is essential. The theory of evolution was developed by scientific observation and testing, it isn't something some random person just thought-up out of the blue. It has some basis in reality. And it goes a long way towards explaining how the world around us works. Why diseases change and adapt to new hosts or drugs. Why certain creatures live in one place and not another. Why we have the tremendous diversity of life on our planet. That one theory provides an awful lot of answers.
Now, I suppose, if the problem was just a lack of funding or time or something... If they just couldn't squeeze everything into the curriculum... I wouldn't be so bent out of shape. I'd be very curious what was being taught instead of evolution. And I might very well suggest that it was more important to teach the basics of evolution than to dissect a frog. But I'd at least understand what the pressures and limitations were.
As it is, however, the pressure is not one of funding or time. The reason evolution is not being taught is because it conflicts with an alternate "theory". One that was, in fact, simply thought-up out of the blue by some guy. One that is not based on the scientific method. One that does not have any basis in reality. One that cannot be objectively tested, or used to make any predictions. One that may, possibly, offer some emotional solace... But is absolutely useless in understanding the actual world around us.
I would be just as offended if they stopped teaching Shakespeare in classes for no other reason than because Twilight fans were feeling threatened.
You won't be. (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who was born in the U.S. but grew up in a Chinese family, let me tell you that the differences are stark. The U.S. is already a third world country by ideological and cultural standards. The population is lazy, self-entitled, undereducated, science-illiterate, unversed in either informal or formal logic, and completely averse to quality standards, quality control, or doing quality work.
All that's left is the resultant 1-or-2 generation slide into broken economy, broken infrastructure, broken governmental systems, etc. America is getting by on inertia and its population isn't doing the work to maintain its current standard of living and production, much less return it to some past glory or other.
China, on the other hand, is ruthlessly pragmatic, wholly rational-instrumental in its current approach to the world, science and math obsessed, achievement-oriented, and completely cold-blooded about it. The achievements are stunning to anyone that looks at what has been done in a few short years, and the expectations and determination are much higher. People that are busy worrying about "human rights" in China really don't get it; most of the Chinese couldn't care less about human rights right now. They want Progress, capital "P", they believe it comes from science, work, and sacrifice, and they're willing to give up almost anything to get it. They want to dominate the world economy and they're well on their way.
The recent furor over Chua's "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" demonstrates at the micro-level, in very clear terms, why China will shortly surpass the U.S. Incidentally, I grew up in a family much like that. Grades were all-important, people were called "trash" and "garbage" when they didn't achieve or perform, and standards were witheringly high. I resented it very much when I was a teenager. By the time I was in my 20s, I recalled it all with fondness and in my 30s I wish I had worked even harder than I did to meet those expectations. And at the end of the day, I don't feel "abused" at all and plan to work hard to raise my own daughter with very high academic and intellectual standards.
My wife and I are currently trying to decide whether this process will require us to leave the U.S. for either China or Eastern Europe (where she's from, and was a child prodigy at top schools under the old Soviet satellite system) in order to get a good education and avoid the dead weight of American anti-intellectual culture holding our daughter back.
Re:Science is being bullied (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's ridiculous, but science is being bullied in the US..."
There fixed that for ya.
Here in Norway... if a teacher were to teach creationism in a biology class they would most likely be fired...
Religious theories and differing views like creationism and FSM (flying spaggeti monster) would most likely be covered in a class covering religion.
Before everyone goes batshit:
The classes covering religion and alternate belief systems are structured around facts about said groups. Like pillars of faith, holy texts and history about the origins of the religions. It has been decided long ago here that it is essential for our population to at least have a minimum of information about such issues as it makes society a whole lot less ignorant and hateful.
Both my parents are teachers and teach sciences. There is the occational student with anal parents making demands but they usually shut up after being introduced to the actual content of the lessons... If they continue and disrupt the education more likely than not a "letter of concern" would be sent to child services. (Routine thing in schools here, to help discover unhealthy home environments and abuse etc).
Amusingly my father has a muslim student and he attended the Advent christian protestant ceremony before christmas. He was given a letter to be signed by his parents if they wanted him excused from it but their reply was simply "It doesnt matter, he has his own belief and experiencing the christian ceremony wont harm and might be useful for him". The kid had no issue and put it more bluntly "I dont believe in any of it anyway so why make a fuss?".
Less BS and more common sense please!
Re:America has jumped the shark (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife is a middle/high school teacher and is teaching evolution in 8th grade as we speak. The other day, a student confronted her in class and said, "You may have come from a monkey but I certainly didn't." This is a charter school here in Gainesville, FL (where we also try burning Qurans every once in a while).
You would think that the situation is better in a magnet school. Nope. In one of the magnet schools here, the teacher flat out refused to teach evolution claiming that it went against her beliefs.
Re:Show us the evidence of evolution! (Score:5, Interesting)
First I asked why we don't drive Model-T Fords anymore? Because someone added pedals to the next car. The car people bought after that had a hardtop roof or windshield wipers. Then some came out with larger engines, those cars survived longer in the marketplace because they were a better fit to what people wanted from their money. Some cars had innovations that didn't work, and they died off (Edsel, et al). And now we have lamborghini's and Bentleys and Chevys and Fords of all different makes and models, with GPS and remote start, and some will do better than others, and continue to be developed. Others will be too expensive, or too fuel hungry, or too feature-poor, and those won't sell as well, and over time, those models will disappear.
Effectively the slow progression the car industry makes in response to market forces is analogous to the evolution of life in response to changing environmental pressure.
Genetics Proves Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment
When chicken embryos start to develop they have teeth buds and the beginnings of multi segmented tails. As they develop their DNA tells the developing embryo to absorb them. Much like human embryo's absorb embryonic gill slits. Now if you turn off the genes that control this absorption instruction you get chicken embryos that develop long multi segmented dinosaur tails and meat eating dinosaur teeth complete with the serrated inside edge. Other studies have also been successful in regressing feathers into scales.
This is not hypothesis. This is not supposition. This is not interpretation. This cold hard, hold in your hands see with your own eyes type reproducible proof. It has already been done, in Canadian universities no less, and is documented and reproducible. One more thing. No DNA was ever added to the bird DNA. This was done using 100% pure chicken DNA.
They have proved that bird DNA contains genes that create dinosaur characteristics. The only way this can happen is through the evolutionary process.
So like when Galileo first pointed his telescope at the heavens and learned that Aristotle was wrong modern scientists have pointed their microscopes at developing bird embryos and learned that they are correct. Evolution is real.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Note:The 'Daily Mail' isn't the gold standard for scientific reporting but here it does a good job of describing the research so the public can understand it (creationists excepted). Names of people and institutions where the work was done are given allowing Internet searches to the relevant papers and science reporting.
Re:Teachers want to keep their jobs! (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a reason the average teacher only works 6 years, and its not the children or administration that are the (main) problem.
Re:Oh dear. Anti-union BS alert! (Score:4, Interesting)
So you're saying that correct solution is *not* to fund the school adequately, but rather to prevent teacher's unions from insisting on decent working conditions for their members? I mean, really? You're blaming the teacher's unions who insisted on decent desks, chairs, and computers for a failure to recruit scientists to teach science? Don't you think your highly qualified scientists are going to demand all that and more? A person with a masters in biology can get a near six-figure income as a senior lab teach in a bio-science lab and get a nice office with a computer (with Internet!) . A person with a Bachelors in Biology will probably be "stuck" making 40-50K in a lower end lab slot, in a decent cube with a nice computer (with Internet!). Why would they go to teach biology in high school to get heaped abuse, sit in crappy chairs, and have a beat up 486 as their workstation?
There are problems with teacher's unions, most notably the fact that they are highly resistant to merit based salary systems (though given what some districts consider "merit" I can kind of understand their reluctance), but demanding decent base salaries and working conditions for their members are not one one of them. If anything, those demands moderately increase the potential for recruiting better teachers.
As someone in education, I'm not surprised... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not calling teachers wimpy, but they have very little to fight for anymore. They *are* going to fold on their curriculum if there's enough public pressure (read: further threat of job security). Often they quit teaching altogether.
Here are some example of topics that teachers just won't teach in California:
1) All 4-6 grade students in California have to learn about the Spanish Catholic missions built throughout the state and how much the natives welcomed the religion and the establishment of permanent cities. Except that's not how it happened, teachers know it, and they teach it because it's part of the California standards. If they say, "The Catholics came to the west coast, enslaved natives, forced their religion on them, and killed those that tried to keep their own religions.," they'd be tossed out on their asses.
2) No president chopped down a cherry tree and then ratted himself out to his father.
3) Many of the founding fathers owned slaves.
4) Slavery was popular and the entirety of the initial financial success of the states was built on the backs of kidnapped, raped, beaten, and worked black people.
5) The Civil War still produces some animosity throughout the South.
6) The "first Thanksgiving" may have happened, but it was cautious and tenuous at best. The pilgrims soon saw the natives not as temporary saviors, but as savages who needed to go away or be purged. Even if they changed to Puritan Christianity, they would have still been seen and treated as beings just above animals and far below humans.
7) The US is *not* a meritocracy. That was the plan, but classes carried over from Europe and further developed here. That's a myth perpetuated by people who want *you* to work hard for *their* benefits.
8) No, not everyone can be president. Not anymore. You need to have a saintly background and/or a TON of money. ... the list goes on and on. Essentially, anything that forces children to confront tradition is sharply argued against and often the source of bad reviews. Call it the "snowflake" or "hover-parent" phenomenon if you wish, I call it the "litigation scare".
Better: Show that they believe evolution too (Score:4, Interesting)
The way to deal with it is to tell the student that whether or not they accept evolution...
There is an even better way which points out that really they probably believe in evolution too. Just ask them whether they were worried about the swine flu outbreak last year or the bird flu a few years before. Assuming that they respond that these were valid causes for some concern ask them why because, if there is no evolution, then there will be no change in infectious diseases either so there is nothing to be concerned about. Then let them think about that for a while.
While many people may profess otherwise when push comes to shove they do believe in science. This latest science-religion controvesy is utter nonsense. Science and religion have coexisted well for hundreds of years. Yes, with occasional conflicts - but lets not forget that a lot of science was actually conducted by religion early on. It only seems to be recently that a few idiots on the fringe of religions seem to have garnered undue support...which is probably not unrelated to the declining educational standards in schools.
Re:Not a science major? (Score:5, Interesting)
The best teachers are quite often the ones nobody likes. In fact, I didn't even like the best teacher I ever had. She was a stodgy old German lady with a thick accent that taught me in fourth grade, but she did three things for me that no teacher before or since came close to:
1. She recognized that I was having genuine difficulties learning and paying attention and she suggested my parents see a doctor. Out of that I got ADD and Tourette's diagnoses. I'm not medicated for them now but they're much easier to cope with, knowing what they are.
2. The school got a grant for 20 TRS-80 computers and none of the other teachers wanted them, so she took the whole batch and taught us all how to type.
3. She noticed my interest in programming and had me teach the other students a bit about it. Did a lot for my confidence and pride, of which I had just about zero at the time.
That said, she was very cold and strict and a lot of the parents didn't like her because she was so standoffish. She was a great teacher, though, even if it wasn't appreciated.
Re:Genetics Proves Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
End of story