TY - JOUR
T1 - Enablers of Doubt
T2 - How Future Teachers Learn to Negotiate the Evolution Wars in Their Classrooms
AU - Berkman, Michael B.
AU - Plutzer, Eric
N1 - Funding Information:
We are grateful to the Penn State Center for the Study of Human Variation, Evolution, and Behavior and its director Nina Jablonski for a research grant to support the collection of focus group data. We are also grateful for support from the Penn State College of Education’s Waterbury fund, and the encouragement of Waterbury Professor Rick Duschl, to support a mini conference that brought to our campus many of the individuals who made the focus groups possible. We also thank Larissa Whitmer for sharing her expertise as a professional focus group moderator, and for observing our first group and providing insightful and gentle constructive criticism. We thank our host institutions for allowing us to join their ongoing science methods classes for an afternoon or evening and the students at these institutions for sharing their thoughts and opinions with us.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 by The American Academy of Political and Social Science.
PY - 2015/3/14
Y1 - 2015/3/14
N2 - Evolution deniers do not need to establish their own scientific position but merely cast doubt on some aspect of evolution or obtain a small amount of legitimacy for creationism or intelligent design to sow sufficient doubt in the mainstream. This doubt is one of three pillars, along with demands for equal time and the incompatibility of science and religion, that Eugenie Scott has argued define contemporary anti-evolution efforts. High school biology teachers play a crucial role in whether a high school biology course reinforces the scientific consensus or whether it confers legitimacy on creationist perspectives with pedagogical strategies consistent with the three pillars. As we have shown elsewhere, many public school teachers do contribute to public opinion on evolution. But where do these norms come from? This article begins to answer this question, using data from our 2007 National Survey of High School Biology Teachers and new data from a series of focus groups with preservice teachers. We find that, as early as in the preservice college years, teachers develop attitudes and pedagogical coping mechanisms that lead to support for the anti-evolution movement.
AB - Evolution deniers do not need to establish their own scientific position but merely cast doubt on some aspect of evolution or obtain a small amount of legitimacy for creationism or intelligent design to sow sufficient doubt in the mainstream. This doubt is one of three pillars, along with demands for equal time and the incompatibility of science and religion, that Eugenie Scott has argued define contemporary anti-evolution efforts. High school biology teachers play a crucial role in whether a high school biology course reinforces the scientific consensus or whether it confers legitimacy on creationist perspectives with pedagogical strategies consistent with the three pillars. As we have shown elsewhere, many public school teachers do contribute to public opinion on evolution. But where do these norms come from? This article begins to answer this question, using data from our 2007 National Survey of High School Biology Teachers and new data from a series of focus groups with preservice teachers. We find that, as early as in the preservice college years, teachers develop attitudes and pedagogical coping mechanisms that lead to support for the anti-evolution movement.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922827272&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922827272&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0002716214557783
DO - 10.1177/0002716214557783
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84922827272
SN - 0002-7162
VL - 658
SP - 253
EP - 270
JO - Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
JF - Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
IS - 1
ER -