Framing evolution discussion intellectually

Abstract

This study examines how a first‐year biology teacher facilitates a series of whole‐class discussions about evolution during the implementation of a problem‐based unit. A communicative theoretical perspective is adopted wherein evolution discussions are viewed as social events that the teacher can frame intellectually (i.e., present or organize as exchanges of an intellectual nature). Furthermore, we characterize teacher framing of evolution discussion in terms of five communicative components: focus, orientation, social structure, mood, and participatory nature. Our video‐based analyses revealed that the teacher paid little attention to the conceptual contents and history of evolutionary theory, framing evolution discussions as moderately playful and partially mandatory events focused mainly on student sharing of ideas (i.e., personal opinions) and polite communication of evolution. Within this framing, the teacher adopted the role of a neutral (though admittedly biased) facilitator with an intermediary expert status (less knowledgeable than evolutionary biologists) and who was legally required (though also inclined) to discuss evolution. The main significance of this study is that it provides new and useful insights into social phenomena such as respect, politeness, and humor in the context of evolution discussion as well as a robust theoretical framework for analyzing evolution discussion from a social perspective. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 257–280, 2011

Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research

“…As such, a typical strategy for teachers is to avoid any mention of the controversy when teaching evolution (Jackson et al 1995;Schilders et al 2009). A case study by Oliveira et al (2011) examined a beginning biology teacher's attempts to deal with the evolution/creationism controversy during a threeweek evolution unit. Although the teacher (Mr. Howe) was polite and maintained a neutral stance to make students feel comfortable, the discussions lacked the 'intellectual ferment' necessary to help students deeply consider evolution.…”

Student Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching Biological Evolution

“…First, Paul maintained that evolution instruction should be personal. Evolution teachers have certainly held this view (Veal & Kubasko, 2003), but other evolution teachers intentionally distance themselves from the content, instead assuming neutrality (Hermann, 2008;Oliveira et al, 2011) or deferring authority to the textbook (Goldston & Kyzer, 2009) or standards (Donnelly & Boone, 2007;Bramschreiber, 2013;Goldston & Kyzer, 2009;Oliveira et al, 2011). Paul's approach was akin to Heady and Sinatra (2013)'s TTES model for evolution conceptual change.…”

“…In terms of content, teachers may avoid evolution altogether (Griffith & Brem, 2004), teach about evolutionary concepts without using the ''e-word'' (Griffith & Brem, 2004), teach only microevolution avoid human evolution in particular (Goldston & Kyzer, 2009;Griffith & Brem, 2004), and encourage students to understand but not necessarily accept evolution (Bramschreiber, 2013). Teachers sometimes assume a neutral stance toward evolution (Hermann, 2008;Oliveira, Cook, & Buck, 2011), avoid conflicts by ignoring them (Chuang, 2003;Hanley, Bennett, & Ratcliffe, 2014;Veal & Kubasko, 2003), defer to the authority of textbooks (Goldston & Kyzer, 2009), justify instruction by referring to standards (Donnelly & Boone, 2007;Bramschreiber, 2013;Goldston & Kyzer, 2009;Oliveira et al, 2011), or present multiple views so students can form their own conclusions .…”

Evolution in the Science Curriculum: The Need for a Middle Ground

“…The potential downside is that the lesson could easily turn into a debate in which the teacher ends up teaching the controversy…a violation of the Establishment Clause. It is important to remember when framing these discussions that a concentration on politeness and social discourse within the classroom can be as important as the content discussed (Oliveira, Cook, & Buck, 2011).…”