Ian C. Binns

Academic Freedom Legislation: The Latest Effort to Undermine the Integrity of Science and Science Education

On June 28, 2008, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), despite opposition from nine national scientific societies, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and numerous scientists around the country (Binns 2011; Forrest 2008). On April 10, 2012, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam failed to veto House Bill 368/Senate Bill 893, nicknamed the ‘‘Monkey Bill’’ by its opponents, despite opposition from many of the same scientific organizations that opposed the LSEA, including AAAS (Roberts 2012). The Louisiana and Tennessee laws followed the model ‘‘academic freedom’’ bill developed in September 2007 and introduced in February 2008 by the Discovery Institute (DI), an Intelligent Design think tank based in Seattle, WA, on a website called Academic Freedom Petition (DI 2008). The DI’s argument for the importance of this type of legislation is that it would ‘‘protect the rights of teachers and students to study the full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution’’ (DI 2008). Additionally, the DI argues that this type of legislation will help to ‘‘promote critical thinking’’ and ‘‘logical analysis’’ as well as encourage teachers and students to discuss the ‘‘strengths and weaknesses’’ of scientific theories (Luskin 2012).

Student Perceptions of a Summer Robotics Camp Experience.

ABSTRACT Research on the effectiveness of STEM-focused (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics-focused) schools and other learning experiences (e.g., short-term camps) on student outcomes is sparse. This study documented perceptions of STEM content and careers for elementary, middle, and secondary school students participating in university-based summer camps focused on robotics. Attitudes before and after the camp experiences were compared across gender groups and grade levels. Middle school students showed greater growth on the surveys compared to their elementary and secondary school peers. Implications for the design and evaluation of STEM experiences include looking at longer, more intensive experiences.

Using Nature of Science to Mitigate Tension in Teaching Evolution

The theory of evolution is a central component of biology. Yet, a 2014 Gallup survey revealed that 42% of Americans reject evolution entirely and, instead, believe that humans were created in their present form approximately 10,000 years ago. While there are many reasons that people reject the theory of evolution, we argue that a misunderstanding of nature of science (NOS) and science in general plays a big part. In this chapter, two science educators present their experiences with evolution in the South. The first section, written by Ian Binns, focuses on how the controversy over evolution education in the South informed how he teaches his science methods courses. The second section, written by Mark Bloom, describes how he incorporates NOS into his teaching when addressing evolution in conservative classrooms in the South to successfully mitigate the tension that many students experience.

Distinguishing Science from Non-Science: Preservice Elementary Teachers' Perspectives on Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design.

Biological evolution stands out as critically important content for K-12 education as it is considered a cornerstone of the biological sciences. Yet, it remains one of the most socially controversial topics related to science education. In this exploratory study, we are seeking to understand the ways elementary preservice teachers (PSTs) use their views of science to justify including or excluding alternative explanations to evolution in the science curriculum. This investigation included 76 PSTs who were enrolled in an elementary science methods course. Data came from an activity designed by the authors entitled “Science in the Public Schools – School Board Scenario.” The scenario proposed that the local school board was considering a motion to alter the science curriculum by introducing creationism and intelligent design (ID) to the unit on biological evolution and the PSTs had to offer their informed recommendations. The two researchers independently read and coded the data using an inductive, constant comparative approach. Findings revealed that 32 would not add creationism or ID, 26 would add both, 9 would add creationism, 6 would add ID, and 3 would only mention them. PSTs came up with diverse explanations for their decision on if to include alternative explanations when teaching evolution. Common rationales emerged within each group and are further explored.

Beyond Evolution: Addressing Broad Interactions Between Science and Religion in Science Teacher Education

Science and religion are two indisputably profound and durable cultural forces with a complex history of interaction. As ASTE members are aware, these interactions often manifest themselves in classrooms and in the surrounding communities. In this essay, we encourage science teacher educators to broaden their perspectives of science–religion interactions so that they may better assist pre- and in-service science teachers with addressing topics such as the age and origins of the universe and biological evolution in an appropriate manner. We first introduce some foundational scholarship into the historical interactions between science and religion as well as current efforts to maintain healthy dialogue between perspectives that are frequently characterized as innately in conflict with or mutually exclusive of one another. Given that biological evolution is the dominant science–religion issue of our day, in particular in the USA, we next summarize the origins and strategies of anti-evolution movements via the rise and persistence of Christian Fundamentalism. We then summarize survey and qualitative sociological research indicating disparities between academic scientists and the general public with regard to religious beliefs to help us further understand our students’ worldviews and the challenges they often face in campus-to-classroom transitions. We conclude the essay by providing resources and practical suggestions, including legal considerations, to assist science teacher educators with their curriculum and outreach.