South Dakota High School Biology Teachers & the Teaching of Evolution & Creationism

Canadian and Pakistani Muslim teachers’ perceptions of evolutionary science and evolution education

“…These include internal factors, such as teachers' religious orientations; comprehension and acceptance of evolution; understanding of the process of knowledge construction in science; teachers' beliefs about how the content knowledge should be presented to students; and knowledge of prevalent misconceptions about evolution. Additionally, several external barriers can pose challenges for the teaching of evolution, for example, school policies related to evolution education, religious values of the school community, students' and parents' views about creationism and evolution, pressure from school authorities and community members; and opposition from religious leaders (Tatina 1989;Moore and Kraemer 2005;Sanders and Ngxola 2009). A careful consideration of these factors in preparation programs may help teacher educators and teachers to address the creationism/evolution controversy and develop effective approaches for teaching the science of evolution.…”

The Development and Validation of the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution Instrument

“…The factors contributing to the current state of instruction in evolutionary biology have proven to be manifold. Historically, restrictive board of education policies; opposition from religious groups, school administrators, and community members; and inadequate textbook coverage have contributed to the de‐emphasis of evolution in the high school biology curriculum (Eglin, 1983;Roelfs, 1987; Shankar, 1990; Skoog, 1970; Tatina, 1989; Troost, 1967; Zimmerman, 1987). Yet, there may be additional, perhaps more fundamental, factors that impact the teaching of this important concept.…”

“…While several studies have documented teacher opinions and attitudes concerning the evolution‐creation controversy (Affannato, 1987; Eglin, 1983; Ellis, 1983; Osif, 1997; Roelfs, 1987; Van Koevering & Stiehl, 1989), few studies have explored the status of biology teachers' acceptance of evolutionary theory. Studies addressing this variable are characterized by instruments that either utilize only a few items to assess teacher acceptance of evolutionary theory (Tatina, 1989; Zimmerman, 1987) or that serve as a combined measure of teacher acceptance and teacher understanding of evolutionary theory (Shankar, 1990). Thus, our understanding of teacher acceptance of this complex and over‐reaching biological theory may be incomplete or confounded.…”

Science Standards, Science Achievement, and Attitudes About Evolution

“…And, in the case of science standards, this point may be particularly exacerbated by the contentious issue of evolution (Bandoli, 2008;Berkman & Plutzer, 2011;Fowler & Meisels, 2010). It is reasonable to expect that the actual implementation of rigorous science standards, which typically have hot-button issues like evolution embedded in them, are at least partially disregarded by teachers because of the external signals they receive (Berkman & Plutzer, 2010;Chuang, 2003;Fowler & Meisels, 2010;Moore, 2004;Tatina, 1989;Van Koevering & Stiehl, 1989) During the last decade, for example, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that "creation science" is not science and cannot constitutionally be taught in science classrooms, Kansas voters battled over the inclusion of the "e-word" in their state standards. The Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania required biology teachers to teach "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution, and Louisiana passed the first anti-evolution "academic freedom" bill, giving teachers and school boards the legal freedom to discredit scientifically accepted theories, even though both states emphasized evolutionary concepts in their state-mandated science standards (Bowman, 2007;Lerner, 2000a;Moore, 2002; National Center for Science Education [NCSE], 2006).…”