Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 17, Issue 8–9, pp 1033–1052 | Cite as

Addressing controversies in science education: a pragmatic approach to evolution education

  • David Hildebrand
  • Kimberly BilicaEmail author
  • John Capps
Original Paper

Abstract

Science education controversies typically prove more intractable than those in scientific research because they involve a wider range of considerations (e.g., epistemic, social, ethical, political, and religious). How can educators acknowledge central issues in a controversy (such as evolution)? How can such problems be addressed in a way that is ethically sensitive and intellectually responsible? Drawing in part on pragmatic philosopher John Dewey, our solution is politically proactive, philosophically pragmatic, and grounded in research. Central to our proposal is (1) steps toward creating a philosophical “total attitude” that is democratic, imaginative, and hypothetical; (2) a deeper understanding of how scientific theories can be pragmatically true; and (3) an assessment of differing pedagogical approaches for teaching evolution in the classroom.

Keywords

Pragmatic philosophy Dewey John Controversial topics/curriculum Science education Evolution education 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman N (2000) Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 22:665–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguillard D (1999) Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: a decade following Edwards v Aguillard. Am Biol Teach 61:182–188Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002) AAAS board resolution on intelligent design theory. Retrieved 1/14/2003, from http:// www.aaas.org/news/releses/2002/1106id2.swhtml
  6. Bilica K (2001) Factors which influence Texas biology teachers’ decisions to emphasize fundamental concepts of evolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, LubbockGoogle Scholar
  7. Bilica K, Skoog G (2004) Ohio teachers on teaching evolution and counter-evolutionary concepts in biology classrooms, 24. Available online http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/8949_ohio_teachers_on_teaching_evol_12_30_1899.asp
  8. Bybee R (2000) Evolution: don’t debate; educate. Sci Teach 67(7):30–36Google Scholar
  9. Cracraft J, Donoghue M (2004) Assembling the tree of life. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson D (2005) Truth and predication. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey J (1916/1985) Democracy and education. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the middle works, 1899–1924, vol 9. Southern Illinois University Press, CarbondaleGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewey J (1925/1983) Science, belief, and the public. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the middle works, 1899–1924, vol 15. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 47–52Google Scholar
  13. Dewey J (1927/1988) The public and its problems. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the later works, 1925–1953, vol 2. Southern Illinois University Press, CarbondaleGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewey J (1938/1991) Logic: the theory of inquiry. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the later works, 1925–1953, vol 12. Southern Illinois University Press, CarbondaleGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewey J (1939/1991) Freedom and culture. In: Boydston JA (ed) John Dewey: the later works, 1925–1953. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 13:63–188Google Scholar
  16. Dupré J (2005) Darwin’s legacy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Elgin C (1996) The relativity of fact and the objectivity of value. In: Krausz M (ed) Relativism. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, pp. 86–98Google Scholar
  18. Ellis W (1983) Biology teachers and border state beliefs. Society 20:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fahrenwald C (1999) Biology teachers’ acceptance and understanding of evolution and the nature of science. Unpublished EdD dissertation, University of South DakotaGoogle Scholar
  20. Farber P (2003) Teaching evolution & the nature of science. Am Biol Teach 65:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrison J (1997) An alternative to Von Glaserfeld’s subjectivism in science education: Deweyan social constructivism. Sci & Educ 6(6):543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gould S (1997) Nonoverlapping magisteria. Nat Hist 106:16–22Google Scholar
  23. Johnson P (2000) The wedge of truth: splitting the foundations of naturalism. InterVarsity, Downers GroveGoogle Scholar
  24. Khishfe R, Lederman N (2006) Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: integrated versus nonintegrated. J Res Sci Teach 43:395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn T (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions, 3 rd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  26. Künne W (2003) Conceptions of truth. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Matsumura M (2001) Eight significant court decisions. Retrieved on 15 January 2003, from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3333_eight_significant_court_decisi_2_15_2001.asp
  28. McComas W (2004) Keys to teaching the nature of science. Sci Teach 71:24–27Google Scholar
  29. Misak C (1999) Truth, politics, morality. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Moore R (2001) Educational malpractice: why do so many biology teachers endorse creationism? Skeptical Inquirer 25(6):38–43Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. National Science Teachers Association (2003) An NSTA position statement: the teaching of evolution. Retrieved on November 2000, from http://wwws.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid = 10
  33. Nord W (1999) Science, religion, and education. Phi Delta Kappan 81:28–33Google Scholar
  34. Osif B (1997) Evolution and religious beliefs: a survey of Pennsylvania high school teachers. Am Biol Teach 59:552–556Google Scholar
  35. Pennock R (1999) The Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Putnam H (1981) Reason, truth and history. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Putnam H (2004) The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Sadler T (2005) Evolutionary theory as a scientific guide to socioscientific decision-making. J Biol Educ 39:68–72Google Scholar
  39. Sadler T, Amirshokoohi A, Kazempour M, Allspaw K (2006) Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspectives and strategies. J Res Sci Teach 43:353–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scharmann L (1994) Teaching evolution: designing successful instruction. J Sci Teach Educ 5:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scharmann L (2005) A proactive strategy for teaching evolution. Am Biol Teach 67:12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scharmann LC, Harris WM Jr (1992) Teaching evolution: understanding and applying the nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 29(4):375–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scharmann L, Smith M, James M, Jenson M (2005) Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. J Sci Teach Educ 16:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwab J (1973) The practical 3: translation into curriculum. School Rev 81:501–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwab J (1983) The practical 4: something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inq 13:239–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shankar G, Skoog G (1993) Emphasis given evolution and creationism by Texas high school biology teachers. Sci Educ 77:221–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shanks N (2004) God, the devil, and Darwin: a critique of intelligent design theory. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Skoog G, Bilica K (2001) The emphasis given to state science standards: a lever for change in evolution education? Sci Educ 86:445–462Google Scholar
  49. Smith M, Siegel H (2004) ‘Knowing, believing, and understanding: what goals for science education? Sci & Educ 13:553–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith M, Scharmann L (2006) A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Retrieved 11/2/2006, from Sci Educ http:// www.springerlink.com/.
  51. Staver J (2003) Evolution and intelligent design. Sci Teach 70:32–35Google Scholar
  52. Tatina R (1989) South Dakota high school biology teachers & the teaching of evolution & creationism. Am Biol Teach 51:275–280Google Scholar
  53. Vision G (2004) Veritas: the correspondence theory and its critics. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Wright C (1994) Truth and objectivity. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Zimmerman M (1987) The evolution–creation controversy: opinions of Ohio high school biology teachers. Ohio J Sci 87:115–125Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences CenterDenverUSA
  2. 2.Curriculum and Instruction, Science Education Emphasis, College of Education and Human DevelopmentThe University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyRochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations