For those of us passionate about science education and scientific literacy, it has become an almost yearly ritual to place our foreheads into our palms in despair upon reading the latest public opinion polls regarding the acceptance of biological evolution by natural selection. Where most developed counties' citizens accept the theory of evolution as scientifically valid, Americans remain reluctant. Even among those of us who accept evolution by common decent, only half recognize strictly natural processes as being entirely responsible for bringing about the diversity in life forms we see today. The reluctance of the American public to accept the theory of evolution en masse has become evidence of continued failure on the part of science education in this country. True, the opinions of many Americans have been shaped in large part by religiously-motivated attitudes towards evolution. However, any science curriculum worth its salt should be able to convincingly demonstrate the veracity of a scientific claim regardless of what biases a student may enter with. It's this demonstrability and repeatability that makes science unique: it requires no indoctrination to accept. As astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson famously said, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." So what can be done to improve the teaching of evolution in our schools' In short, research into the teaching of evolution has identified two prominent issues. First, teachers' content knowledge of evolution and the specific mechanisms of natural selection can be problematic. Second, teachers' personal acceptance of evolution and willingness to teach it can often interfere with an accurate and enlightening instruction of the subject. Before I go any further, I feel it is important to state that the discussion of the two above issues that will follow is not aimed at the large majority of enthusiastic and knowledgeable science teachers who know their subjects through and through. Nor is it my intention to paint a picture of an education system where science teachers are inept or unqualified to teach their subjects. Rather, I wish to bring attention to areas that, if addressed, could drastically improve science literacy in this country. Regarding the first issue of content knowledge, problems arise when otherwise capable teachers are unable to correctly answer students' more advanced questions. For example, what percentage of biology teachers could provide detailed answers to questions like 'how did species transition from asexual to sexual reproduction'' Or 'how did the number of chromosomes change from species to species'' If a student asks for specific evidence for evolution, how many teachers would give an unconvincing generic answer like 'genetics' (as opposed to describing genetics in the context of phylogeny)' How many could accurately describe endogenous retroviral elements (among numerous other numerous pieces of evidence)' Students who receive inadequate (and sometimes, incorrect) answers to these legitimate questions are more likely to be skeptical of the veracity of evolution, despite the scientific consensus that evolution is a fact as sure as the Earth orbits the sun. To address this issue, we need more stringent requirements for biology teacher certification. In order to attain this level of mastery over the content, one might need not only a degree in education, but also a formal education (perhaps even an advance degree) in biology. Attracting candidates who hold post-graduate degrees in the sciences to teach high school is a conversation for another day, but there is no doubt that doing so would require increasing teachers' pay to levels commensurate to their educational qualifications. It is no coincidence that states with the lowest acceptance of evolution are those where teacher pay is lowest. Regarding the minority of biology teachers who personally do not accept evolution, ensuring that they teach an accurate lesson free of misconceptions and misrepresentations would, admittedly, be difficult. In fact, teachers who do not accept evolution but teach it anyway can pose a greater threat to science literacy than if they simply avoided the subject altogether. Let me be clear, completely omitting evolution from a high school biology course is unacceptable, but the literature has suggested that teachers who begrudgingly teach evolution often do so in a way that projects antipathy to the subject. If a student asks a basic question about evolution (for example, 'if humans are descendants of apes, why are there sill apes''), the teacher might respond stating that that question alone pokes a hole in the theory of evolution, or that there is no explanation. When these instances happen, students are exposed to evolution as being weak and unsubstantiated. What's worse is that it's coming from someone (a teacher) whom the students have a right to assume is providing them with an authoritative view on the subject. Teaching evolution in a misrepresentative fashion is even more harmful than not teaching it at all (assuming students eventually will have other opportunities to learn from a knowledgeable teacher). It helps perpetuate misconceptions and misunderstandings about evolution. So what can be done about this particular issue' As unpopular as it might be, we need periodic lesson observations from individuals who can recognize when evolution is being carelessly (or intentionally) misrepresented. It is also possible that a more rigorous certification process (as described above) would weed out these teachers. Evolution is a notoriously difficult concept to teach, even for the most knowledgeable of teachers. But it is not impossible to teach, even to students who enter the classroom with an anti-science bias. Many of us, myself included, were fortunate enough to be taught by passionate and brilliant science teachers, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. Let's make that yearly face-palm ritual a thing of the past. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Click here to read full news..
