1 / 22

Ending the cycle of continued evolution controversy: Can we start in elementary school?

Ronald S. Hermann Towson University rhermann@towson.edu. Ending the cycle of continued evolution controversy: Can we start in elementary school?. Introduction.

media
Download Presentation

Ending the cycle of continued evolution controversy: Can we start in elementary school?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ronald S. Hermann Towson University rhermann@towson.edu Ending the cycle of continued evolution controversy: Can we start in elementary school? MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  2. Introduction • Acceptance and understanding of evolution remain low in the U.S. despite a concerted effort to educate all children supported by those in science, education and religious organizations (The National Center for Science Education, 2008). MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  3. Problem • Evolution education in the United States is a contentious issue as evidenced by the low number of Americans who accept evolution (Miller, Scott & Okamoto, 2006). • Colburn and Henriques (2006) found that much of the clergy is supportive of evolution instruction, while Moore (2004) indicated that as much as 60% of the 103 Minnesota science teachers he surveyed made pro-creationist comments. MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  4. Purpose • There are 2 approaches educators can take: 1) develop effective strategies for teaching evolution at the secondary and post- secondary level, and 2) provide a comprehensive pathway that provides a framework for understanding evolution prior to high school biology. MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  5. Limited Secondary Evolution Education Experiences • Of 939 teachers surveyed, • 17% did not cover human evolution and 2% did not cover general evolutionary processes • 36% of teachers spent less than 6 hours of coverage on general evolutionary processes (Berkman, Pacheco & Plutzer, 2008). • Moore and Cotner (2009) reported that the students of teachers who include creationism in their biology classes are significantly more likely to accept creationism and reject evolution. MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  6. Low Understanding of Evolution • Students maintain a dismal understanding of evolution (Demastes, Settlage & Good 1995; Deniz, Donnelly & Yilmaz, 2008; Lawson & Worsnop, 1992; Lord & Marino, 1993; Sinclair & Pendarvis, 1997). • High school students scored low on the CINS (Anderson, Fischer & Norman, 2002) 7.99/19 and Rutledge and Warden’s (2000) measure of evolution understanding 7.71/16 (Hermann,2007). MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  7. Largely Unsuccessful Interventions • A great deal of literature (Bishop & Anderson,1990; Cavallo & McCall, 2008; Jensen & Finley,1995; Jensen & Finley 1997, Scharmann,1990; Sinclair & Pendarvis, 1997)suggests that even with specific interventions designed to address misunderstandings or provide depth of content, understanding of evolution remains generally low. MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  8. Systemic Approach is Needed • Beardsely’s (2004) work with 8th grade led him to conclude that one-shot attempts to increase understanding are insufficient. MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  9. Pre-high School Learning Experiences • There is a critical need for children to develop an understanding of science so that they can evaluate anti-evolution messages when first encountered (Lombrozo, Thanukos & Weisberg,2008). • Bloom and Weisberg (2007) found that the primary source of resistance to evolution instruction is related to what children know before their exposure to science. MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  10. Promising Studies • Evans (2000) found that preadolescents fossil knowledge appeared to block the effect of parental creationist beliefs. • During their early adolescent years (11 to 13 years) children are ready to abandon creationist theories and adopt naturalistic explanations that violated their strongly held beliefs (Evans, 2001). MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  11. The Role of Testimony • “Children’s beliefs vary with the level of testimonial support that they encounter, particularly from trusted sources such as parents” (Harris, Pasquini, Duke, Asscher & Pons,2006, p. 93). • Resistance to scientific claims will persist into adulthood if there is a nonscientific alternative rooted in commonsense and championed by reasonable, trustworthy people (Bloom & Weisberg, 2007). MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  12. Role of Elementary Teachers • The role elementary teachers play in directly or indirectly facilitating an understanding and acceptance of evolution is paramount. • Can we start in elementary schools? • How well prepared our elementary teachers to teach evolutionary theory? MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  13. A Pilot Study of Pre-service Elementary Education Majors Data collection consisted of a 3 part survey taken at the end of science/math semester • Basic demographic information survey that accounts for age range (from age 18 and up), gender, sex, type of secondary education (i.e. public or private) and general description of religiosity. • A measurement of understanding of evolution (Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection; Anderson, Fischer & Norman, 2002) . • Acceptance of evolution (Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution; Rutledge and Warden , 1999) . MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  14. Demographics • 82 (76 females, 6 males) • 41 students between 18-20, 36 between 21-23, 4 between 24-30 and 1 between 51-60. • 77 were Caucasian, 3 were African American, 1 Hispanic and 1 “other” • 73 attended public high schools, 7 from private religious schools and 2 from private, non-religious schools MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  15. Religiosity Mean Religiosity = 16.29/25 MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  16. Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection • Scores ranged from 1/19 to 17/19 with a mean of 8.42/19. • Recall, high school students scored 7.99/19 on the CINS (Anderson, Fischer & Norman, 2002). MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  17. Acceptance of Evolution • Scores ranged from 26/100 to 98/100 with a mean of 72.40/100. • Based on the initial field-testing of the MATE, Rutledge (1996) developed the following categories of acceptance: Very High Acceptance: 89-100 High Acceptance: 77-88 Moderate Acceptance: 65-76 Low Acceptance: 53-64 Very Low Acceptance: 20-52 MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  18. Correlations **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  19. Influence of religious vs. public school MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  20. Conclusions • Pre-service elementary majors scored marginally higher on the CINS compared to high school students. • Results support the position that acceptance of evolution is not correlated with understanding of evolution. • Religiosity appears to correlate with acceptance of evolution to a greater extent than understanding of evolution. MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  21. Next Steps • Comparison across majors • Comparison across demographic groups/other geographic areas • Refining the survey • Developing interventions for elementary education majors • Including practicing teachers MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

  22. Response to the statement "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." Back MAASTE 2010 Johnson City, Tennessee

More Related