Teachers On The Front Line – Teaching Skepticism And Stepping Up

I was going to just pop this into the miniblog… but it got me thinking beyond the subject it talks about: teaching evolution in modern times and changes made to the education system in Florida to cater for this.

Besides, I have about three hours to kill whilst sitting here at Gatwick airport, and I have a very large coffee beside me, shown in the photo. There’s a lot to get through, both on this news item and in the cup…

From the NY Times: ‘A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash‘

In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.” Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.

But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.

Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.

With a mandate to teach evolution but little guidance as to how, science teachers are contriving their own ways to turn a culture war into a lesson plan. How they fare may bear on whether a new generation of Americans embraces scientific evidence alongside religious belief.

…But at the inaugural meeting of the Florida Citizens for Science, which he co-founded in 2005, he vented his frustration. “The kids are getting hurt,” Mr. Campbell told teachers and parents. “We need to do something.”

In my opinion, this is not that dissimilar to teaching which promotes a skeptical world view… as I wrote last year and presented at TAM5, back in 2007:

In terms of what we skeptics are writing on the topic of younger years and teaching critical thinking via studying the paranormal and pseudoscientific – I found even less. There’s a Skeptical Inquirer article titled ‘Ouija in the classroom’ back in September 1997, which discussed how one teacher’s class looked at the likes of UFOs, ghosts, Big Foot, and Ouija boards. But that same article stated:’

‘Every year parents complain about my “teaching the paranormal. Often, all they need is a face-to-face explanation of what’s going on to calm their fears… the administration has given me support, and then withdrawn it under pressure.’ [Barrieau, 1997]

Teaching children to look skeptically at weird things appears to be quite contentious, for a variety of reasons as shown. That is another concern I have – how could a teacher be better supported when they teach a class which might go against the dominant values of their community?

…Finally and even more importantly, when the teaching of skepticism is opposed (or even silenced outright) – where can you gain much needed resilience and support from academia, fellow skeptics and support groups? Is a forum board, a blog, a podcast (or a conference) really good enough? We should be questioning ourselves – our role models who are skeptics and our methodology as much as we question weird claims. I honestly don’t see any online skeptical forum community that truly tackles any of these issues or has demonstrated any serious study into what is being faced by teachers beyond vague ‘let’s do something! Anything!’ or ‘Educate your children to enjoy science!’ statements that are soon forgotten in favor of what appears to be ‘promoting skepticism for the already skeptical’.

Finally – networking, networking, networking. I question whether the case of ‘Ouija In The Classroom’ might have never been shut down if online teachers stood together, if a coordinated skeptic group questioned the decision or if there was a program that depended on students passing the course.

Since that time, I admit that I’ve had occasional contact by a few in regards to these issues – but those who do contact me are more often than not similarly interested in explicit application and strategies that aren’t just web-based – they are actually ‘walking the walk’. 

I’m talking about the group here – Critical Teaching.

It’s a great team of people and they are determined to move beyond just commenting how ‘important’ it is to support teaching of skepticism and even critical thinking skills to young people – but it’s still only handful to begin with. A mixture of tertiary, secondary and primary teachers; a smattering of passionate stakeholders, like a scientist at a government agency, who works on outreach and diversity projects, actively producing resources and wondering how to do more. This is something we’re now starting to nut out and realistically consolidate. 

In many ways, I see that we are not unlike Campbell in the NY Times article, who is working in the classroom, speaking up about curriculum; both current and former teachers, scientists and researchers from other disciplines – some are writing for their own publications and making a stand for a Critical Teaching mission statement and writing up definite medium to long term goals as stakeholders in the education of young people.

But as Campbell shows in his experience – it’s not easy making changes or being a minority voice, even as a science teacher:

Mr. Campbell, 52, who majored in biology while putting himself through Cornell University on a Reserve Officers Training Corps scholarship, taught evolution anyway. But like nearly a third of biology teachers across the country, and more in his politically conservative district, he regularly heard from parents voicing complaints.

With no school policy to back him up, he spent less time on the subject than he would have liked. And he bit back his irritation at Teresa Yancey, a biology teacher down the hall who taught a unit she called “Evolution or NOT.”

Yes, that is an example of fellow science teachers with a distinctly different view. This was something I recognised from my own experiences and referred to in my TAM5 speech – the challenge is so much greater than just producing lesson plans or webpages, or being ‘cheerleaders’.

As this paper shows: ‘Probing scientists’ beliefs: how open-minded are modern scientists?’, a study that used qualitative interviews with scientists across a variety of disciplines, as well as the Exeter Questionnaire on superstitious beliefs from in the Preece and Baxter (2000) paper:

The participants in this study are scientists. Despite the stereotypical images many people hold of scientists (see Dalgety et al. 2003) they are also human beings with personal beliefs and intuitive notions about what constitutes credible beliefs. The research findings reported in this work suggest that such personal beliefs, along with their scientific training, influence scientists’ thinking. The scientists were highly conscious that their own beliefs contain a significant cultural element. As well as the interpretation of the aforementioned data, most participants made specific reference to the social aspect of knowledge. This is a fascinating finding given the stereotypical picture of the scientists ascribing to a realist ontology and striving to achieve objectivity (Guba and Lincoln 1989).

To illustrate, Teresa was asked whether she thought that all phenomena can potentially be explained scientifically. She responded: ‘No because I think it is human activity’. It is our view that whereas the scientists involved in this inquiry are more ‘superstitious’ than one might have anticipated (in so far as they apparently did not automatically discount the superstitions presented on the Exeter questionnaire), they were generally sceptical but also were open to other interpretations for a variety of phenomena. Their scientific thinking, presumably as a result of their extensive training in science, was highly influential, but they did not discount their own personal experiences. These scientists felt the need for satisfactory evidence or credible testimony, and harboured concerns with coincidence and sought alternative – more credible – explanations along with a strong desire for some underlying theoretical basis (or possibility of such) to their beliefs. Rather than finding the level of ‘superstitious’ beliefs of concern, we feel this is in fact a manifestation of the fact that scientists are influenced by their socio-cultural context and indeed are more open-minded than many would otherwise have believed (Wertsch 1991). [Coll & Taylor, 2004] – my emphasis.

I should also nod at what Campbell has experienced in the teaching of evolution – as with teaching any other belief, the belief that scepticism is a system of thought worth adopting can be disputed, and academics should be in the position of teachers rather than indoctrinators. The simplest approach to this problem is probably the one demonstrated: whilst I am a strong advocate of scepticism, I do not seek to influence students’ beliefs or start a war in the classroom over ‘who is right’. Ethically, therefore, I am not precluded from teaching students the reasons why scepticism is of value, I must not in any way seek to assess their actual inclinations to use the approach. Therefore, although this limits attempts to induce an inclination to use scepticism, it does not prevent it altogether.

So, how do we strike the happy medium? Is it even possible to educate rather than indoctrinate? I’ve already noted a few other puzzled voices, like a ‘Dr B’ on the UK Skeptics Forum with ‘Some Problems With Some Factions of Skepticism’:

 

One problem with organised scepticism is that for some, it seems to act as a fashion accessory. There appears to be a contingent (albeit not a major one) who seem to think that being ‘nerdy’ and well-informed is ‘cool’ even ‘sexy’. I find this a distracting irrelevance as those I know whom are influenced in this way are largely incapable of producing cogent arguments to back up their often sweeping statements – preferring instead to rely on what their ‘hero’ skeptic would say / has said in the past – without actually bothering to think about it. This seems to be the exact opposite of what scepticism should be about. So I think there is a contingent which is actually flying directly against the underlying philosophy of skepticism. Here skepticism is a handbag, a new pair of shoes, a posh car…..something to be seen to have…..

Then there are those who frequent places like this asking for ‘arguments’ which they can go and beat their favourite woo with. I find this absurd and it happens on the JREF regularly. If we are promoting critical thinking then – we need to learn to think for ourselves and not merely be a collector of standard arguments (even if those arguments are correct). While we should provide guidance – we should not do the work for the individual as this (I feel) is counter productive to the aims of promoting free thinking…

… the point is, many in skepticism are deluding themselves with the illusion of explanation because they know a term, and a vague process that appears to have relevance, coupled to the fact that it’s what their favourite celebrity skeptic says so there!!!! I wonder to what extent a collection of these standard arguments give these ‘wannabe’s’ comfort in the same way woo gives comfort to the believer…

 

 

Urgh, sorry, even the notion of being stereotyped as the ‘sexy teacher’ just opens a whole new can of worms, quite frankly… Likewise, we should avoid producing young people who have stock-responses and fail to understand that sensitivity needs to work hand-in-hand with a skeptical attitude. Too rarely do I hear of the dangers of dismissing people as ‘gullible’, ‘insane’ or ‘stupid’ and how this makes teaching even more difficult when it is the popularised by skeptics.

In addition, we’ve had more than enough issues with trends in education that are more akin to producing ‘guaranteed solution templates’ (as I wrote about before, with a paper about the Education Clearing house, Dore, et al) and more than enough non-teachers in skepticism, thinking that teaching the younger years is as simple as mere lecturing or doing a science whizz-bang show. Cross-curricular incorporation, discussing events and experiences openly, long-term support… not as easy as it seems!

So, where are the teachers then? Is it rather akin to what Campbell is facing when teaching evolution, a resistant majority, a long struggle taking years and years to get attention, let alone resources… and even when you have succeeded, the hurdles of culture, family beliefs, social networking and the reinforcement of a thousand media outlets saying otherwise, that must be acknowledged and catered for on the front lines?

I recently dug out a paper that I carry with me on my travels – ‘Scepticism and gullibility : the superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs of secondary school students‘, the Baxter and Preece (2000) paper that I referenced in passing before:

Despite these trends towards greater scepticism, many school students, including science sixth-formers, were found to be very gullible and only a minority of all age groups was strongly sceptical. There are, no doubt, many reasons why people hold superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs, for such beliefs are rooted in history (MacDougall 1999) and in human psychology (Jahoda 1969, Shermer 1997, Vyse 1997, Valhouli 1999). Links have been established between certain personality types and the tendency to hold superstitious beliefs (Tobacyk and Shrader 1991, Frost et al. 1993, Thalbourne and French 1995). In addition, the popular media provide a stream of ill-informed and uncritical material that helps to establish and reinforce superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs among adults and children. Wiseman and Jeffreys (1997) analysed popular children’s books on the paranormal, each of which claimed to present a factual account.

They found that the books contained many errors, badly misinforming readers, with the number of ‘pro-paranormal’ passages far outnumbering those which were ‘anti-paranormal’. We also suspect that some teachers, in acknowledging the fallibility of scientific knowledge, perhaps unwittingly undermine students’ confidence in the standard scientific worldview. In teaching about the great contributions of Einstein and Heisenberg to physics, for example, care should be taken not to promote a mistaken belief in the relativism and uncertainty of all things. 

Where has this all left me?

Well, it’s a longer journey than what I thought it would be back in 2007. I’m contributing to a few larger projects because of the handful who have been supportive; I’ve become a writer of a dissertation on superstitions and even heading to a conference at the moment to take part on a panel. I keep writing this blog when I’m not busy, but honestly, I don’t think it’s the be-all-and-end all.

Additionally, I’m not going to be surprised in the slightest if I come across as a fifth-wheel on the Dragon*Con panel on Education, in comparison to some of the names attending – I’m not a PhD nor have I published a book, for a start! I don’t even have qualifications to teach science and have only done so in conjunction with science teachers’ guidance – ‘who is that jet-lagged Australian on the end of the line?‘ But then I’ve always thought that my contributions have been more under the wire than most (erm, as one of my friends said – perhaps because I don’t ‘get my tits out for the skeptic lads’ as much as the stereotype demands?  :) )… but it’s a more directly-related project to be involved with. I certainly hope that there’ll be more opportunities for those who have more relevant qualifications than I in the future, like those held by fellow members of the Critical Teaching group.

If you’re interested in being a part of a ‘start’, consider joining the Critical Teaching Google Group and seeing whether one day, it’ll be represented by more than just one panel or a few workshops at skeptic conferences. Certainly, our ambitions, as Campbell’s were for the state of education in Florida, are for much more.

Tagged as: Bad Astronomy, Children, creationism, critical teaching, Dragon*con, Education, educators, evolution, Florida, group, JREF, kids, networking, NY Times, Parenting, podblack, primary, projects, sceptic, scepticism, school, schooling, secondary, Skepticism, teachers, teaching, teaching skepticism, teenagers, tertiary, UK Skeptics