|
|
|
|
|
|
State Standards, Pre-Tests, Misconceptions and the ENSI Solution Randy Moore, et al. How Biology Students in Minnesota View Evolution, the Teaching of Evolution & the Evolution-Creationism Controversy. The American Biology Teacher. May 2006. Vol.68, No.5. Online Article. This study shows that most high school students want their biology classes to include evolution, while most of those classes do not emphasize evolution, defying state standards. This is associated with a high level of serious misconceptions about evolution (in high school and college). Read further for some notable comments in the article, and how ENSIweb can help. "Much evidence indicates that what we've described here for evolution education in Minnesota also occurs in many other states." (Moore, et al., 2006). "The power of Darwin's theory to explain and make accurate predications about life is why it is 'the most powerful theory within the field of biology' (Rutledge & Warden, 2000) and why the National Academy of Sciences encourages teachers 'to use evolution as the organizing theme in teaching biology' (Alles, 2001, NSTA, 2004)" "The most important single factor influencing learning
is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach
him accordingly." (David Ausubel, in Ausubel, Novak and
Hanesian article cited in the report). This underscores the
value of pre-testing, and the Moore, et al. article offers a
nice selection of questions used in its survey that could be
used in your classes, the results of which could be compared
with those in their study. Evolution-related concepts of first-year university students are similar to those taking beginning high school biology. This is probably "not surprising in light of the fact that biology courses have 'almost no effect' on many of these beliefs (Lawson & Worsnop, 1992). Students beliefs are often extremely resistant to change, and teaching students what we want them to know is often ineffective when students already have their own deeply held ideas." " state standards for evolution education are largely [de facto] irrelevant to the teaching of evolution in biology classrooms of public schools." "These data [discussed in the present study] are troubling, for they document a dramatic failure of science education in the United States. Scientists do not debate whether evolution occurred; evidence from biochemistry, geology, anthropology, geochronology, biology, medicine and other scientific disciplines shows emphatically that it has. That is why [virtually all scientific organizations] all name evolution as a unifying concept of science and note that sciences such as geology, biology and anthropology 'cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.'" SOLUTIONS?: At ENSI, we suggest that a matter-of-fact addressing of critical elements in the nature of science (and evolution), if done in an interactive and engaging manner, should create dissonance in the minds of those holding inaccurate concepts, a necessary first step to replacing misconceptions with more scientifically accurate views. Those critical elements that have been found to be associated with popular misunderstandings have been addressed in all the ENSI lessons. If properly presented, without overtly denouncing the misconceptions, these lessons should subtly encourage students to voluntarily replace those earlier views with more scientific understandings. As soon as we are told that a deeply held idea is "wrong," natural defensiveness tends to resist any correction, so it's probably best to avoid such direct confrontations. ANOTHER APPROACH: In the same online issue, another way to
deal with the evolution-creationism "controversy "
is presented. Focused on pre-service science teachers, the study
indicated that Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) strategies
promoted consensus, enhanced propensity to teach evolution, avoided
confrontation, and emphasized scientific thinking. |