- #1
imagemakker
- 2
- 0
Hello,
I am working on my Master's of Humanities at Tiffin University, and I have been asked by my instructor to seek feedback on my thesis topic. Please review the information below and get back with me about your thoughts.
The conceptions of Copernicus yielded the nucleus of modern scientific theory; yet, the quagmire of biological science would remain unresolved until Charles Darwin. During the time of Copernicus, scientific theorists believed divine intervention formed all species. However, Darwin introduced the world to the nature of science, impressing the advancement of all life through cellular progression. With the publication, “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, Darwin became the father of biological science through evolutionary theory. Socially, the theory of evolution disturbed many religious leaders as it enfeebled the position of God in the equation of life (Ayala, 840-41). This concern developed into an ardent American dialogue in the mid-1920s during the trial of the State of Tennessee versus John Scopes.
The Monkey Trail nourished public concerned that a secular, scientific theory would essentially eliminate God from the concept of creation. More importantly, many parents worried that the teachings of God would no longer be presented to their children in public classrooms. Today, this debate continues to rage on in states across America. In the United States, each state determines the public education of children through a Board of Education; this includes curriculum design and textbook content. Since the 1950s, special interest groups began eagerly attending public hearings regarding curriculum design and textbook content; because many members of the public wanted a say in matters concerning the public education of their children (Armenta and Lane, 76-78). Currently, the nature of science in primary and secondary education is defined, not by professional scientists or educators, but by the political influence of special-interest groups.
Texas is one of the most powerful states involved in this debate. With the second largest textbook buying power in America, the political impact of Texas affects the textbook content and therefore, the curriculums of many other states (Manzo, 11). In 2010, the Texas Board of Education voted to change its biological science curriculum content to reflect a more open interpretation of modern evolutionary synthesis to include creationism and intelligent design (Harris, pars. 2-5). This key political action marks a significant social change. How do these changes affect Texas educators? How will these changes be reflected in Texas high school biology curriculums? How do these changes effect student performance in college biology courses?
The purpose of this study seeks to answer questions surrounding evolutionary theory through instructors. Queries will seek to understand how instructors resolve personal bias, pedagogical knowledge, legal controversy, peer pressure, and state-mandated curriculum. Other areas of uncertainty include instructor perception of time given to evolutionary theory versus creationism, pedagogical interpretations of the fundamentals surrounding the nature of science, and instructor perception of the effectiveness of an alternative theory in the classroom.
Interviews will take place from a cross-section of high school biology instructors in Houston, Texas. The 24 school districts that define the city of Houston comprise the largest student population in the state. 35-45 current and retired public school biology instructors will be chosen in a quasi-experimental group from members of the National Association of Biology Teachers and the Texas Association of Biology Teachers. One-on-one interviews with these individuals will be audio recorded, in a location of their choosing, and the identity of the participants will remain anonymous. Recorded interviews will be transcribed and coded for values related to creationist theory versus evolutionary theory.
The goal of these interviews is to determine the fundamentals of faith-based issues conflicting with scientific theories. A copy of the proposed open-ended interview questions is enclosed; probative or leading questions may be asked based on responses. Instructors will be encouraged to share their experiences, ideas, beliefs and pedagogical designs. The participant’s perceptions will represent emic voices; each instructor must be allowed to explore their own journey about their beliefs regarding evolution. The final presentation will constitute a phenomological design, with a null hypothesis of; religious belief or faith does not affect the presentation of evolution in the classroom. All participants will receive a performance test, of ten questions in biology, to assert their personal understanding of evolution. A copy of the proposed performance test is enclosed for review. As the discussion in the one-on-one interviews is controversial and perhaps emotional, participants can discontinue their participation at any time.
In addition, high school biology textbooks used in Texas will be presented for quantitative language analysis of the chapters covering evolutionary theory. Textbook content in Texas has been heavily debated since the 1960’s. Textbooks approved by the Texas Board of Education will be compared for the last 25 years. The language of these texts will be analyzed and coded. Results will seek determine when creationist language first appeared in biology texts and how the current references to evolutionary theory differs from previous references. The textbooks will be acquired from the Educational Research Analysts organization; their archives contain a collection of approved textbooks in Texas for the last 40 years. The political and social pressure of many organizations complicates the client relationship for national publishers. Ultimately, the language of the text suffers and therefore, the substance from which a student deduces critical thought is compromised (Ravitch, 157-70).
Studies conducted by Dr. Randy Moore in Minnesota since the 1980s indicate there is an increase of creationism being taught in Minnesota high-school classrooms; unfortunately, this extrapolates to poorly prepared students entering college science courses (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 95-100). Moore notes, that his research does not imply that a student’s experience with creationism is solely responsible for a student’s weak performance in college science, however the exposure to creationism often remains imbedded in student ideas after rigorous scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory has been presented (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 1-4). At its core, this pedagogical quandary remains the fundamental principle of the nature of science. If a high-school student fails to be presented with a fundamental premise of evolutionary theory, their understanding of the nature of science stands threatened. Finally, Moore’s analysis concludes that his investigations clearly indicate that, “student high school experiences in biology have a greater impact on a students acceptance of evolutionary theory then a single college-level introductory biology class” (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 99).
Clearly, high school biology instructors require a deeper understanding of the relationship of student experiences to biological pedagogical theory. Understanding the human motivation to avoid controversial situations remains key to resolving the circumstances surrounding the social, political, economic, and psychological factors for instructors. Scientists and educators need to work together to establish procedures and curriculum for high school biology teachers to ease the pressure on individual instructors who must decide how to teach evolutionary theory, intelligent design and creationism (Moore, 2007, 268-71). This report will provide information to the public, special interest group leaders, educators, politicians and scientists in an attempt to resolve these challenges for future generations. The education of children must remain sacrosanct; providing students with the tools of critical thinking and scientific theory provides a solid foundation of knowledge.
Completing this study is estimated to take 12 to 18 months. Potential challenges surround the acquisition of instructors to support both sides of the argument. If necessary, a snowball approach may be implemented to complete the interviewee data set. Concerns surrounding reliability and validity remained focused on my ability to accurately articulate the emic concerns of the subjects of the study. Obviously remaining vigilant to the concerns of the data, with integrity and honesty will limit these challenges.
Work Cited:
Armenta, Tony, and Kenneth E. Lane. “Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the Evolution Controversy in Public Education.” Clearing House 83 (2010): 76-79. Print.
Ayala, Francisco J. “Darwin’s Explanation of Design: From Natural Theology to Natural Selection.” Infection, Genetics and Evolution 10 (2010): 840-843. Print.
Harris, Sean Phillip. “The Evolution of Intelligent Design in Texas Schools (pt. 2).” Examiner.com. Austin Examiner, 14 July 2009. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-austin/the-evolution-of-intelligent-design-texas-schools-pt-2?render=print#print>.
Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy. “History Repeats Itself in Texas for Textbook-Review Process.” Education Week 21.43 (2002): 11. Print.
Moore, Randy. “Creationism in the United States: (IV) The Aftermath of Epperson V. Arkansas.” American Biology Teacher 61.1 (1999): 10-16. Print.
- - -. “The Differing Perceptions of Teachers & Students Regarding Teachers’ Emphasis on Evolution in High School Biology Classrooms.” American Biology Teacher 69.5 (2007): 268-271. Print.
- - -. “How Well Do Biology Teachers Understand the Legal Issues Associated with the Teaching of Evolution?” BioScience 54.9 (2004): 860-865. Print.
Moore, Randy, and Sehoya Cotner. “Educational Malpractice: The Impact of including Creationism in High School Biology Courses.” Evolutionary Educational Outreach 2 (2009): 95-100. Print.
- - -. “Rejecting Darwin: The Occurrence & Impact of Creationism in High School Biology Classrooms.” American Biology Teacher 71.2 (2009): 1-4. Print.
Moore, Randy, and Karen Kraemer. “The Teaching of Evolution & Creationism in Minnesota.” American Biology Teacher 67.8 (2005): 457-466. Print.
Ravitch, Diane. The Langauge Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. New York: Knopf, 2003. Print.
I am working on my Master's of Humanities at Tiffin University, and I have been asked by my instructor to seek feedback on my thesis topic. Please review the information below and get back with me about your thoughts.
The conceptions of Copernicus yielded the nucleus of modern scientific theory; yet, the quagmire of biological science would remain unresolved until Charles Darwin. During the time of Copernicus, scientific theorists believed divine intervention formed all species. However, Darwin introduced the world to the nature of science, impressing the advancement of all life through cellular progression. With the publication, “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, Darwin became the father of biological science through evolutionary theory. Socially, the theory of evolution disturbed many religious leaders as it enfeebled the position of God in the equation of life (Ayala, 840-41). This concern developed into an ardent American dialogue in the mid-1920s during the trial of the State of Tennessee versus John Scopes.
The Monkey Trail nourished public concerned that a secular, scientific theory would essentially eliminate God from the concept of creation. More importantly, many parents worried that the teachings of God would no longer be presented to their children in public classrooms. Today, this debate continues to rage on in states across America. In the United States, each state determines the public education of children through a Board of Education; this includes curriculum design and textbook content. Since the 1950s, special interest groups began eagerly attending public hearings regarding curriculum design and textbook content; because many members of the public wanted a say in matters concerning the public education of their children (Armenta and Lane, 76-78). Currently, the nature of science in primary and secondary education is defined, not by professional scientists or educators, but by the political influence of special-interest groups.
Texas is one of the most powerful states involved in this debate. With the second largest textbook buying power in America, the political impact of Texas affects the textbook content and therefore, the curriculums of many other states (Manzo, 11). In 2010, the Texas Board of Education voted to change its biological science curriculum content to reflect a more open interpretation of modern evolutionary synthesis to include creationism and intelligent design (Harris, pars. 2-5). This key political action marks a significant social change. How do these changes affect Texas educators? How will these changes be reflected in Texas high school biology curriculums? How do these changes effect student performance in college biology courses?
The purpose of this study seeks to answer questions surrounding evolutionary theory through instructors. Queries will seek to understand how instructors resolve personal bias, pedagogical knowledge, legal controversy, peer pressure, and state-mandated curriculum. Other areas of uncertainty include instructor perception of time given to evolutionary theory versus creationism, pedagogical interpretations of the fundamentals surrounding the nature of science, and instructor perception of the effectiveness of an alternative theory in the classroom.
Interviews will take place from a cross-section of high school biology instructors in Houston, Texas. The 24 school districts that define the city of Houston comprise the largest student population in the state. 35-45 current and retired public school biology instructors will be chosen in a quasi-experimental group from members of the National Association of Biology Teachers and the Texas Association of Biology Teachers. One-on-one interviews with these individuals will be audio recorded, in a location of their choosing, and the identity of the participants will remain anonymous. Recorded interviews will be transcribed and coded for values related to creationist theory versus evolutionary theory.
The goal of these interviews is to determine the fundamentals of faith-based issues conflicting with scientific theories. A copy of the proposed open-ended interview questions is enclosed; probative or leading questions may be asked based on responses. Instructors will be encouraged to share their experiences, ideas, beliefs and pedagogical designs. The participant’s perceptions will represent emic voices; each instructor must be allowed to explore their own journey about their beliefs regarding evolution. The final presentation will constitute a phenomological design, with a null hypothesis of; religious belief or faith does not affect the presentation of evolution in the classroom. All participants will receive a performance test, of ten questions in biology, to assert their personal understanding of evolution. A copy of the proposed performance test is enclosed for review. As the discussion in the one-on-one interviews is controversial and perhaps emotional, participants can discontinue their participation at any time.
In addition, high school biology textbooks used in Texas will be presented for quantitative language analysis of the chapters covering evolutionary theory. Textbook content in Texas has been heavily debated since the 1960’s. Textbooks approved by the Texas Board of Education will be compared for the last 25 years. The language of these texts will be analyzed and coded. Results will seek determine when creationist language first appeared in biology texts and how the current references to evolutionary theory differs from previous references. The textbooks will be acquired from the Educational Research Analysts organization; their archives contain a collection of approved textbooks in Texas for the last 40 years. The political and social pressure of many organizations complicates the client relationship for national publishers. Ultimately, the language of the text suffers and therefore, the substance from which a student deduces critical thought is compromised (Ravitch, 157-70).
Studies conducted by Dr. Randy Moore in Minnesota since the 1980s indicate there is an increase of creationism being taught in Minnesota high-school classrooms; unfortunately, this extrapolates to poorly prepared students entering college science courses (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 95-100). Moore notes, that his research does not imply that a student’s experience with creationism is solely responsible for a student’s weak performance in college science, however the exposure to creationism often remains imbedded in student ideas after rigorous scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory has been presented (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 1-4). At its core, this pedagogical quandary remains the fundamental principle of the nature of science. If a high-school student fails to be presented with a fundamental premise of evolutionary theory, their understanding of the nature of science stands threatened. Finally, Moore’s analysis concludes that his investigations clearly indicate that, “student high school experiences in biology have a greater impact on a students acceptance of evolutionary theory then a single college-level introductory biology class” (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 99).
Clearly, high school biology instructors require a deeper understanding of the relationship of student experiences to biological pedagogical theory. Understanding the human motivation to avoid controversial situations remains key to resolving the circumstances surrounding the social, political, economic, and psychological factors for instructors. Scientists and educators need to work together to establish procedures and curriculum for high school biology teachers to ease the pressure on individual instructors who must decide how to teach evolutionary theory, intelligent design and creationism (Moore, 2007, 268-71). This report will provide information to the public, special interest group leaders, educators, politicians and scientists in an attempt to resolve these challenges for future generations. The education of children must remain sacrosanct; providing students with the tools of critical thinking and scientific theory provides a solid foundation of knowledge.
Completing this study is estimated to take 12 to 18 months. Potential challenges surround the acquisition of instructors to support both sides of the argument. If necessary, a snowball approach may be implemented to complete the interviewee data set. Concerns surrounding reliability and validity remained focused on my ability to accurately articulate the emic concerns of the subjects of the study. Obviously remaining vigilant to the concerns of the data, with integrity and honesty will limit these challenges.
Work Cited:
Armenta, Tony, and Kenneth E. Lane. “Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the Evolution Controversy in Public Education.” Clearing House 83 (2010): 76-79. Print.
Ayala, Francisco J. “Darwin’s Explanation of Design: From Natural Theology to Natural Selection.” Infection, Genetics and Evolution 10 (2010): 840-843. Print.
Harris, Sean Phillip. “The Evolution of Intelligent Design in Texas Schools (pt. 2).” Examiner.com. Austin Examiner, 14 July 2009. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-austin/the-evolution-of-intelligent-design-texas-schools-pt-2?render=print#print>.
Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy. “History Repeats Itself in Texas for Textbook-Review Process.” Education Week 21.43 (2002): 11. Print.
Moore, Randy. “Creationism in the United States: (IV) The Aftermath of Epperson V. Arkansas.” American Biology Teacher 61.1 (1999): 10-16. Print.
- - -. “The Differing Perceptions of Teachers & Students Regarding Teachers’ Emphasis on Evolution in High School Biology Classrooms.” American Biology Teacher 69.5 (2007): 268-271. Print.
- - -. “How Well Do Biology Teachers Understand the Legal Issues Associated with the Teaching of Evolution?” BioScience 54.9 (2004): 860-865. Print.
Moore, Randy, and Sehoya Cotner. “Educational Malpractice: The Impact of including Creationism in High School Biology Courses.” Evolutionary Educational Outreach 2 (2009): 95-100. Print.
- - -. “Rejecting Darwin: The Occurrence & Impact of Creationism in High School Biology Classrooms.” American Biology Teacher 71.2 (2009): 1-4. Print.
Moore, Randy, and Karen Kraemer. “The Teaching of Evolution & Creationism in Minnesota.” American Biology Teacher 67.8 (2005): 457-466. Print.
Ravitch, Diane. The Langauge Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. New York: Knopf, 2003. Print.
