TEACHERS... here's an interesting video

[SallyMander]

(I posted this in GD where it promptly sank like a bucket of concrete -- but maybe someone here will find it interesting.)


The 20-minute video is called Private Universe, and it was produced in 1987 by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html?pop=yes&...


Although the hairstyles are a bit dated, the central idea is a fascinating one. What can we as teachers do to address the (often incorrect) preconceived notions that our students have? The video focuses on two main questions: Why do the seasons change, and why does the moon have phases? As shown in the video, many well-educated people still answer these questions wrong.

As a biology teacher, i am especially interested in how this relates to the teaching of evolution. Many students come to evolution with opinions based on erroneous information -- what can we as teachers do to address and correct this problem?

[RebelSansCause]

1. ok you have piqued my interest at the context of the larger question

i have not gone and watched the video, but i will give my opinions on the teaching of evolution from the point of view of...a freshman college student who comes from a very liberal and very wealthy town in the suburbs of new york city. here is something i learned in college that i did not know about evolution, something that proved critical and yet was skipped over because it has nothing to do with the pure science of the theory. i think that it is critical that biology teachers not overlook the social context of where there students come from. (incidentally, where is it that you teach and what are the demographics of the area that might influence the minds of the children) in my town, no one believe in creationism, but that should nearly go without saying seeing as where I am from.

as for the critical piece of information, i did not know that the original objection to the concept of evolution develops out of the fact that Darwin hypothesized that we are evolving without a higher purpose. so long as you do not believe in the LITERAL creation story, the idea of evolution is not so objectionable if you are a faithful christian. (atheist btw, always have been, family is non-observant jews) i did not know this, and much of the bile that i see today spewed from the hateful mouths of the fundi xtians is that of literal creationism.

before i go off onto a great many tangets, is this the kind of response you are looking for? or am i totally missing the point?

[SallyMander]

2. Thanks for your response!

Your thoughts are really interesting too me, especially as a college student. I am a grad student at a large state university, so i get students from all over the state -- some from really liberal areas (like you), and others from VERY rural and conservative districts. So it's a really interesting balance. I taught evolution a few quarters ago, and we handed out an anonymous survey at the beginning of the quarter. One of the questions was, "what is your current perception of evolution?" We had some students reply things like "heresy," "blasphemy," and "i don't believe in it." So that's certainly something i'm dealing with.

You're exactly right about Bible literalists being the ones with big issues with evolution. There's a really good book called Monkey Girl that talks about the trial in Dover, PA where the school board tried to introduce "intelligent design" (modern-day creationism) into a public high school. The book (and the judge in the case) makes the interesting point that there is this dualism in the thinking that doesn't really need to exist. Like, you either believe in God (and ID) or you are an atheist (and accept evolution). As if the two were mutually exclusive, which they definitely aren't! In that same vein then, any evidence "against" evolution is used as evidence "for" ID -- as if they were the only two options.

Anyway, i feel like i'm rambling, but it's a topic that really interests me. I'm definitely interested in your perspective as a college student -- how much evolution did you learn in HS? Do you think you'll come across it again in college?

[RebelSansCause]

3. ah yes i followed the Dover case extremely closely

the judge made a most excellent ruling in that case, i was very pleased, called it like he saw it.

quite a bit in HS actually. darwinian theory and comparison to Lamarck's. of course genes and genetic material and the crossing-over between chromosomes. i honestly believe that people who adhere to biblical literacy are nearly un-persuadable. what they are saying defies logic and reason in every sense of the words. the fact that are so willing to throw away human achievement and advancement scares the hell out of me. but i do not think that people who are willing to do so can have their minds changed unless it comes to them via some sort of personal revelation.

i attend college at NYU so i do not really believe we have many (if any) bible literalists. the school is simply one of the most liberal colleges in the country and located in the center of manhattan, one of the most liberal cities in the country. if there are any, they are few and very far between.

as to whether i will come across it in my studies, no i do not believe so. this is because i am a physics/math/philosophy combination major thingy. but, if i was not a science major then i would be required to take a natural science course entitled "human evolution" and i am sure you can understand where that will go.

i think in the course of your teaching (since you teach such a diverse mix) that it is necessary to approach in a non-partisan way. in addition, it must be stressed that this is what scientific method and theory dictate. the evolution that we know today is by no means a LAW, but it is the best that we can predict given the tools given to us.

personally, one problem i have always had with religion is that it takes the conception of human thought (like the following through that a judeo-christian god-esque figure is unfeasible and illogical) and rejects it as though even if their god DID exist, it would expect us to reject rationality.

do you agree with what i said about the unfeasability of teaching people things when they go out of their way to reject every basic tenant proposed to them? what are some of your other thoughts on this issue?

[SallyMander]

4. Your major sounds really interesting!

Is it one you designed yourself? Or do they have an interdisciplinary program? Anyway, very neat.

What you wrote about bible literalists sounds right on to me... i saw an interesting figure once, with a big eye on the left, and all these various concepts (education, law, science, etc) on the right. In a non-religious (or secular religious) person, the eye just sees all these concepts. In a religious fundamentalist, there is a lens over the eye -- that's religion -- and all the concepts are seen through this lens. So you have to consider that when teaching this person science, they will never be able to see it outside of the religious context -- because that context colors everything they see. I wish i could draw the figure here, but hopefully you see what i mean.

There's a book called "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller (one of the Plaintiff's expert witnesses in Dover). I haven't read it yet, but it's about the reconciliation between his religious faith and his occupation as an evolutionary biologist. I've been meaning to pick it up for years; maybe this conversation will finally prompt me to do it! :)