Talking Teaching

September 23, 2013

teach creationism, undermine science

This is something I originally wrote for my ‘other’ blog.

Every now & then I’ve had someone say to me that there’s no harm in children hearing about ‘other ways of knowing’ about the world during their time at school, so why am I worried about creationism being delivered in the classroom? 

Well, first up, my concerns – & those of most of my colleagues – centre less on whether teaching creationism/intelligent design is bringing religion into the science classroom1, & more on how well such teaching prepares students for understanding and participating in biology in the 21st century. For example, if a school can make statements like this:

It is important that children and adults are clear that there is one universal truth. There can only be one truthful explanation for origins that means that all other explanations are wrong. Truth is truth. Biblical truth, scientific truth, mathematical truth, and historical truth are in harmony2.

and go on to list the “commonly accepted science we believe in”, then their students are not gaining any real understanding of the nature of science. And the statements regarding the science curriculum that I’ve linked to above indicate that it’s not just biology with which the school community has an issue. Physics, geology, cosmology: all have significant sections listed under “commonly accepted ‘science’ we do not believe in”3. (Did you notice the quote marks around that second mention of science?)

Science isn’t a belief system, & while people are entitled to their own opinions they are not entitled to their own facts. Any school science curriculum that picks & chooses what is taught on the basis of belief is delivering (to quote my friend David Winter) “a pathetic caricature of actual science, … undermin[ing] science as a method for understanding the world and leav[ing] the kids that learned it very poorly prepared to do biology in the 21st century.” Or indeed, to engage with pretty much any science, in terms of understanding how science is done and its relevance to our daily lives. And if we’re not concerned about that lack of science literacy, well, we should be.

 

although I do think this is a problem too.

2 with the subtext that the first ‘truth’ takes precedence.

Taken to its extreme, the belief system promoted in teaching creationism as science can result in statements such as this:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing…

…We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of miniscule changes in atmospheric chemistry.

This does not look like a recipe for good environmental management to me.

 

September 20, 2013

charter schools can teach creationism after all

I first wrote about charter schools just over a year ago. At the time I was commenting on statements that such schools would be able to employ as teachers people who lacked teaching qualifications, wondering how that could sit with the Minister’s statements around achieving quality teaching practice. But I also noted concerns that charter (oops, ‘partnership’) schools could set their own curricula, as this would have the potential to expand the number of schools teaching creationism in their ‘science’ classes.

Well, now the list of the first 5 charter schools has been published: two of those schools is described (in the linked article) as intending to “emphasise Christian values in its teaching.” By itself that =/= creationism in the classroom – but yesterday Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint program (17 September 2013) reported that the school’s offerings will probably include just that.

In addition the prinicipal has reportedly said that the school will teach “Christian theory on the origin of the planet.”

And today we’re told (via RNZ)

The Education Minister has conceded there’s nothing to prevent two of New Zealand’s first charter schools teaching creationism alongside the national curriculum.

Two of the five publicly-funded private schools, Rise Up and South Auckland Middle School, have contracts that allow a Christian focus.

The minister, Hekia Parata, said on Tuesday that none of the five schools would teach creationism alongside or instead of evolutionary theory.

But on Thursday she told the House two of the schools will offer religious education alongside the curriculum.

Ms Parata did not specify how the two would be differentiated in the classroom.

South Auckland Middle School has told Radio New Zealand it plans to teach a number of theories about the origins of life, including intelligent design and evolution.

Point 1 (trivial, perhaps?): South Auckland Middle School needs to look into just what constitutes a theory in science. (Hint: a theory is a coherent explanation for a large body of facts. “A designer diddit” does not remotely approach that.)

Point 2 (not trivial at all): Why do people responsible for leading education in this country think it acceptable for students to learn nonscience in ‘science’ classes? After all, the Prime Minister has commented on “the importance of science to this country.” Evolution underpins all of modern biology so how, exactly, does actively misinforming students about this core concept prepare those who want to work in biology later? Nor does teaching pseudoscience sit well with the increased emphasis on ‘nature of science’ in the NZ Curriculum.

This is really, really disappointing. We already have ‘special character’ schools which teach creationism in their classrooms (see herehere and here, for example). It’s irking in the extreme that state funding will be used to support the same in the new charter schools.

September 12, 2013

Who’s the best teacher?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Marcus Wilson @ 9:47 am

[This post is a copy of one I posted yesterday on my blog PhysicsStop. http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/physicsstop   ]

I’ve just come out of a very interesting cross-faculty discussion on effective use of ‘tutors’ in our courses. It’s hard to define the word, because the role of ‘tutor’ means different things in different parts of the university. But, think of it broadly as being someone who is paid (often not very much and on a casual contract) to teach in laboratory classes, give tutorial sessions to students, mark student work, undertake administrative teaching tasks (e.g. attendance registers for laboratory classes) and so forth. Tutors are often the primary contact that students have with teaching staff at the university – students probably feel able to talk to their tutors more freely than they can talk to other academic staff – though that is quite faculty and subject specific.

Their role within the university system is very valuable. Their close contact with students ensures that students feel that they belong and have somewhere they can go with problems. But it’s not the ‘soft’ stuff that’s the only reason for using tutors – take a look at this research paper on the effectiveness of teaching of tenure-track and non-tenure track (adjunct) staff. The work looks at teaching at Northwestern University in the US, across eight years (it’s a sizeable study – looking at 15,000 students). In particular, the study looked beyond a comparison of the teaching effectiveness of the two groups of staff in the courses where both groups taught, and looked at the enrollment and performance of students in subsequent courses. What it found was that students taught by adjuncts (what we might loosely call a ‘tutor’ here) got better grades in subsequent courses, and were more likely to enrol in subsequent courses in that subject.  In other words, the adjuncts were more effective in terms of both long-term student learning and student motivation. The effect was most marked with the weakest students.

The work doesn’t look at why this is the case, though it offers some speculative reasons, including that the tenured staff are recruited for being leaders in their research disciplines, not for being excellent teachers.

This article should make all universities with a two-tier teaching staff system (such as Waikato) sit up and take notice. Just what strategies are we using when it comes to ensuring excellent teaching? Should universities split staff into ‘teaching only staff’ and ‘research only staff”? Are tutors being paid according to the value that they deliver? And, importantly for the students who fork out large amounts of money to go to university – are the students getting value for money from their teachers?

David N. Figlio, Morton O. Schapiro & Kevin B. Soter. Are tenure track professors better teachers? Working Paper 19406, National Bureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w19406

The WordPress Classic Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 164 other followers