I replied to that post, quoting the Ontario curriculum and pointing out that it was pretty damn good when it comes to evolution [Teaching evolution in Ontario Schools]. The curriculum concentrates on fundamental principles of evolution as they apply to all species. It does not cover any details of the history of life per se. It doesn't specifically mention the evolution of whales, or birds, or any other lineage. It doesn't say which examples have to be included in the classroom instruction. It refers frequently to the fact that humans are not different than any other animals when it comes to biology.
In Ontario (Canada) there is a province-wide curriculum that all public schools must follow. This includes the Roman Catholic separate schools that receive money from the province. This post is prompted by something written last month by an anonymous blogger who runs Darwnquixote. He claims that human evolution is not taught in Ontario schools [Be Careful, Evolution is Behind You]. Jerry Coyne picks up on this and launches into a tirade about the Ontario curriculum [Ontario schools require teaching evolution—except human evolution]. Coyne urges everyone to write letters of complaint to the Ontario Minister of Education. (Her name is Liz Sandals and she is an excellent (not perfect) Minister of Education.) Is it true that the Ontario curriculum does not teach that humans have evolved?
I've been quite impressed with the science and technology curriculum as revised in 2008 and I'm hearing good things about the next revision. The teaching of evolution, like all aspects of the curriculum, focuses on understanding the basic concepts and on encouraging students to think for themselves. Students learn about evolution and diversity in the primary grades where the emphasis is on the relationship of humans and other species [The Ontario Curriculum: Elementary: Science and Technology]. In grade 1 they learn that "Plants and animals, including people, are living things" (page 44) and in Grade 2 one of the "big ideas" is that humans are animals (page 58).
I came across an interesting article about "PeerWise."
Hardy, J., Bates, S.P., Casey, M.M., Galloway, K.D., Galloway, R.K., Kay, A.E., Kirsop, P., and McQueen, H.A. (2015) Student-Generated Content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions. International Journal of Science Education 36: 2180-2194. [doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.916831]
Abstract
The relationship between students' use of PeerWise, an online tool that facilitates peer learning through student-generated content in the form of multiple-choice questions (MCQs), and achievement, as measured by their performance in the end-of-module examinations, was investigated in 5 large early-years science modules (in physics, chemistry and biology) across 3 research-intensive UK universities. A complex pattern was observed in terms of which type of activity (writing, answering or commenting on questions) was most beneficial for students; however, there was some evidence that students of lower intermediate ability may have gained particular benefit. In all modules, a modest but statistically significant positive correlation was found between students' PeerWise activity and their examination performance, after taking prior ability into account. This suggests that engaging with the production and discussion of student-generated content in the form of MCQs can support student learning in a way that is not critically dependent on course, institution, instructor or student.
This sounds like a good way to encourage some student-centered learning in large classes. We have several biochemistry classes in our department that could benefit.
One of the most difficult concepts to get across to science educators (e.g. professors in a biochemistry department ) is the idea that students need to be exposed to ideas that you think are incorrect and they need to be given the opportunity to make a choice. It's part of critical thinking and it's part of a good science education. Part of the problem is that there's a general reluctance to even teach "ideas" as opposed to facts and techniques.
There's an extensive pedagogical literature on this but university professors are reluctant to admit that there might be better ways to teach. While browsing this literature, I came across a recent article by Henderson et al. (2015) that makes a good case.
From an academic pedagogical perspective, there’s nothing wrong with a course that has a reading list emphasizing quack medicine. This is the view that people outside of the university don’t understand. They appear to want to prevent students from ever learning about, or discussing, the anti-vax movement and how to deal with it.
Those of you who read the articles and have seen talks by supporters of science-based medicine like Steve Novella and myself will recognize this for the straw man that it is. We never say anything like this, that we want to prevent students from learning about or discussing the antivaccine movement. That is an assertion that is unsupported and, quite frankly, downright risible. So you should understand that I was more than a little pissed off when I read this part of Moran’s post. We never say that we don’t want alternative medicine to be taught or antivaccine views taught. (Indeed, I really wish that pediatrics residency programs, for instance, would do a better job of teaching antivaccine views, so that they don’t catch pediatricians by surprise when parents start expressing them.) What we complain about is the uncritical teaching of these topics, the teaching, for example, of alternative medicine modalities as though they had scientific merit. This is a massive problem in medical academia. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve reiterated this very point going back at least a decade.
We agree. I wasn't referring to people like Orac who understand how universities should work. I was referring to those people outside of the university community who really do want to ban any mention of alternative medicine at universities. I guess I didn't make that clear.
I'm pretty sure that Orac knows about this crowd. They are totally opposed to the idea of teaching the controversy. They have some very strong views on what's right and what's wrong and they firmly believe that the only views that should ever be expressed in university classes are the ones they agree with.
In the end, my little fit of pique over Prof. Moran’s condescending and dismissive attitude towards those of us who were so outraged by this course being offered by U. of T. aside, we actually (mostly agree). Moran supports “teaching the controversy” with respect to evolution and with respect to alternative medicine. So do I. Where we disagree is over what “teaching the controversy” actually entails. Can Prof. Moran can honestly say that he wouldn’t be the least bit upset if his own department were to offer an entire course on “controversies in evolution” taught by Ken Ham, Casey Luskin, and a Discovery Institute fellow to be named later? That he would approve of such a class as a great way to “teach the controversy”? If he can, I’d say there’s a problem. If he can’t say that, I congratulate him. That’s the correct reaction. In that case, I also point out that he has no business being so contemptuous of our anger over a homeopath teaching a course in alternative medicine as a way of “teaching the controversy.”
As I said in my earlier post, the problem wasn't that an anti-vaccine point of view was being discussed in a university course. The problem was that the course was being taught by someone who wasn't qualified to offer a university course that encouraged critical thinking. That situation has been rectified.
I would love to invite Casey Luskin to come and give a few lectures on Intelligent Design Creationism to my students. It would be far better for them to hear the other side directly from the horse's mouth than filtered through me.
There's been a recent kerfluffle about a course called "Alternative Health: Practive and Theory" taught as part of a program in Health Studies at the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus (Toronto, Ontario, Canada).
Most of the readings in the course emphasized non-evidence-based medicine and health. The instructor was Beth Landau-Halpern, a homeopath who warns her patients about the dangers of vaccines [see Beth Landau-Halpern]. She's also the wife of Rick Halpern, the Dean and Vice-Principle of University of Toronto, Scarborough (UTSC). Ms. Landau-Halpern will no longer be teaching and the Dean has resigned [Rick Halpern Resigns].
The July 16th (2015) issue of Nature has a few articles devoted to science education [An Education]. The introduction to these articles in the editorial section is worth quoting. It emphasizes two important points that I've been advocating.
Evidence shows us that active learning (student centered learning) is superior to the old memorize-and-regurgitate system with professors giving powerpoint presentations to passive students.
You must deal with student misconceptions or your efforts won't pay off.
So many people have been preaching this new way of teaching that it's truly astonishing that it's not being adopted. It's time to change. It's time to stop rewarding and praising professors who teach the old way and time to start encouraging professors to move to the new system. Nobody says it's going to be easy.
We have professors whose main job is teaching. They should be leading the way.
One of the subjects that people love to argue about, following closely behind the ‘correct’ way to raise children, is the best way to teach them. For many, personal experience and centuries of tradition make the answer self-evident: teachers and textbooks should lay out the content to be learned, students should study and drill until they have mastered that content, and tests should be given at strategic intervals to discover how well the students have done.
And yet, decades of research into the science of learning has shown that none of these techniques is particularly effective. In university-level science courses, for example, students can indeed get good marks by passively listening to their professor’s lectures and then cramming for the exams. But the resulting knowledge tends to fade very quickly, and may do nothing to displace misconceptions that students brought with them.
Consider the common (and wrong) idea that Earth is cold in the winter because it is further from the Sun. The standard, lecture-based approach amounts to hoping that this idea can be displaced simply by getting students to memorize the correct answer, which is that seasons result from the tilt of Earth’s axis of rotation. Yet hundreds of empirical studies have shown that students will understand and retain such facts much better when they actively grapple with challenges to their ideas — say, by asking them to explain why the northern and southern hemispheres experience opposing seasons at the same time. Even if they initially come up with a wrong answer, to get there they will have had to think through what factors are important. So when they finally do hear the correct explanation, they have already built a mental scaffold that will give the answer meaning.
In this issue, prepared in collaboration with Scientific American, Nature is taking a close look at the many ways in which educators around the world are trying to implement such ‘active learning’ methods (see nature.com/stem). The potential pay-off is large — whether it is measured by the increased number of promising students who finish their degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines instead of being driven out by the sheer boredom of rote memorization, or by the non-STEM students who get first-hand experience in enquiry, experimentation and reasoning on the basis of evidence.
Implementing such changes will not be easy — and many academics may question whether they are even necessary. Lecture-based education has been successful for hundreds of years, after all, and — almost by definition — today’s university instructors are the people who thrived on it.
But change is essential. The standard system also threw away far too many students who did not thrive. In an era when more of us now work with our heads, rather than our hands, the world can no longer afford to support poor learning systems that allow too few people to achieve their goals.
The old system is also wasteful because it graduates students who can't think critically and don't understand basic concepts.
After years of negotiation between the administration and the Faculty Association, the university has finally allowed full time lecturers to calls themselves "professors" [U of T introduces new teaching stream professorial ranks]. This brings my university into line with some other progressive universities that recognize the value of teaching.
Unfortunately, the news isn't all good. These new professors will have a qualifier attached to their titles. The new positions are: assistant professor (conditional), teaching stream; assistant professor, teaching stream; associate professor, teaching stream; and professor, teaching stream. Research and scholarly activity is an important component of these positions. The fact that the activity is in the field of pedagogy or the discipline in which they teach should not make a difference.
Meanwhile, current professors will not have qualifiers such as "professor: research," or "professor: administration," or "professor: physician," or "professor: mostly teaching."
The next step is to increase the status of these new professors by making searches more rigorous and more competitive, by keeping the salaries competitive with other professors in the university, and by insisting on high quality research and scholarly activity in the field of pedagogy. The new professors will have to establish an national and international reputation in their field just like other professors. They will have to publish in the pedagogical literature. They are not just lecturers. Almost all of them can do this if they are given the chance.
Some departments have to change the way they treat the new professors. The University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA) has published a guideline: Teaching Stream Workload. Here's the part on research and scholarly activity ....
In section 7.2, the WLPP offers the following definition of scholarship: “Scholarship refers to any combination of discipline-based scholarship in relation to or relevant to the field in which the faculty member teaches, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and creative/professional activities. Teaching stream faculty are entitled to reasonable time for pedagogical/professional development in determining workload.”
It is imperative that teaching stream faculty have enough time in their schedules, that is, enough “space” in their appointments, to allow for the “continued pedagogical/professional development” that the appointments policy (PPAA) calls for. Faculty teaching excessive numbers of courses or with excessive administrative loads will not have the time to engage in scholarly activity. Remember that UTFA fought an Association grievance to win the right for teaching stream faculty to “count” their discipline-based scholarship. That scholarship “counts” in both PTR review and review for promotion to senior lecturer.
And here's a rule that many departments disobey ...
Under 4.1, the WLPP reminds us of a Memorandum of Agreement workload protection: “faculty will not be required to teach in all three terms, nor shall they be pressured to volunteer to do so.” Any faculty member who must teach in all three terms should come to see UTFA.
This is ridiculous. I'm opposed to American politicians who meddle in science teaching and I'm opposed to British politicians who do the same even though I think creationism is bunk. Politicians should not be deciding what kind of science should, and should not, be taught in schools.
It's a matter of principle. It's as wrong as when American state governments banned the teaching of evolution.1
In addition, there are other reasons why this is a bad idea.
Where do you stop? Do there also need to be laws banning the teaching of astrology, climate change denial, homeopathy, and Thatcherism? Do they need laws defining the correct history of how the traitors in the Thirteen Colonies formed an alliance with the French in order to overthrow well-meaning British governments?
Why give creationists the ammunition to claim that they are being persecuted—especially when it's true?
What's wrong with showing that creationism is bad science and refuting it in the classroom? Is that forbidden? Evolution is true, it doesn't need legal protection.
Are the Brits so afraid of creationism that such a law is necessary in order to prevent creationist teachers from sneaking it into the classroom? If so, fix that problem by educating teachers.
Was this a serious enough problem to warrant giving creationism a huge publicity boost?
The government funding agreement notes that creationism "... should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory ..." Why not? I think that some parts of Intelligent Design Creationism really do count as valid scientific hypotheses, albeit bad ones. Why is the government taking a stand on the demarcation problem—especially an incorrect one?
1. I'm not exactly sure who made the decision in the UK. It could be the case that "government" is just a catch phrase for decisions made by a body of science teachers and science experts. Those decisions are just implemented by the "government."
It's particularly important to note that just presenting correct scientific facts isn't enough to correct myths and misinformation. You need to discuss the misinformation and show why it is wrong. This method is supported by numerous studies.
What it means is that if you want to correct misinformation about evolution, you have to address the false beliefs of your audience. You can't correct the beliefs of evolution deniers without bringing up the various forms of creationism and showing why they are wrong. In other words, teach the controversy.
Some of my American friends tell me that this is legally impossible in American schools. If they are right, then creationism wins. Ironically, by using the courts to keep all mention of creationism out of the public schools, these friends are playing right into the hands of the anti-evolution crowd and making it impossible to debunk their myths and misconceptions.
Everybody loves Vij's. We were lucky. We arrived late at 5:20 for the first sitting when the restaurant opens at 5:30. The lineup was not as big as I've seen in the past and we were able to get seated when Vij opened up.
Left to right; Gordon Moran, Me, Chris Hogue, Jerry Coyne.
We talked about computer games. travel, India, Singapore, food, science, books, religion, evolution, politics, and solved most of the problems of the world. (Beer helps.) The food was delicious. Check out the entire meal, with photos, on Jerry's blog: Noms: Vij’s Indian restaurant in Vancouver.
Here's the May 13, 2015 version of Jesus and Mo. The barmaid is correct. There are lots of studies showing that you can't dispel major misconceptions by simply describing the scientifically correct view. For example, if you are teaching evolution to creationists you can describe the science until you are blue in the face but it's likely to have little impact on changing their minds.
The only way to correct misconceptions is to address them directly and show why they are wrong. That means you have to teach the reasons why a 6000-year-old Earth is a misconception and explain why irreducible complexity and the Cambrian explosion do not refute evolution.
The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) has recommended that biochemistry courses concentrate on core concepts rather than details. It has defined five categories of core concepts that are essential in understanding biochemistry and molecular biology [see ASBMB Core Concepts in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Molecular Structure and Function].
Theme
Better BiochemistryI strongly support the concept of teaching core concepts even though I disagree with many of the actual concepts that are proposed. Here are the five core concepts with links to my discussions.
I'm interested in science education in general and teaching biochemistry and molecular biology in particular. A recent publication in PLoS Biology caught my eye ...
Reindl, K.M., White, A. R., Johnson, C., Vender, B., Slator, B.M., and McClean, P. (2105) The Virtual Cell Animation Collection: Tools for Teaching Molecular and Cellular Biology. PLoS Biology 13(4): e1002118 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002118
The paper focuses on the value of short animations for teaching biochemistry and molecular biology to advanced high school students and college students.
There's nothing in the paper about the scientific accuracy of the presentations or the pedagogical approach and this is unfortunate. The animations only show complex eukaryotic cells in spite of the fact that the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology recommends an evolutionary approach to teaching. The fact that the videos emphasize eukaryotes leads to some interesting descriptions of fundamental processes.
Look at the video on transcription regulation for example [Regulated Transcription]. The textbooks teach this using simple systems such as E. coli transcription then they move on to more complex prokarotic systems such as the lac operon. Then they cover the eukaryotic examples pointing out how they differ from the simple bacterial systems. This has always been a successful approach to teaching the basic concepts of transcription and transcription regulation. 1
Is the approach taken by the authors of The Virtual Cell Animation project better? I don't think so. What do you think? Does anyone out there teach transcription without introducing it first in bacteria?
Let's not forget my favorite example of biochemical misconceptions: the Citric Acid Cycle. Did you know that it's sometimes called the "tricarboxylic acid cycle" because three CO2 molecules are released for every pyruvate molecule? 2
The carboxylate groups on citrate, isocitrate etc. are shown as -COOH instead of COO- as in the textbooks. I don't know why they did this ... it leads to some extra protons being released in the reactions.
The authors make a very common mistake with succinate dehydrogenase. They show FADH2 as one of the products of the reaction whereas the IUBMB database shows that the real final product is QH2 [see Succinate Dehydrogenase]. I don't understand why biochemistry teachers can't check out a leading textbook (or the scientific literature) before producing a video.
Did you know that some of the reactions of glycolysis are irreversible? Check out the video on Glycolysis to find out which reactions have this interesting property. 3 There is no video on gluconeogenesis and that's surprising because the synthesis of glucose is far more important than glycolysis in most species.
I wonder if the editors of PLoS bothered to watch the videos or whether they just assumed that they were scientifically accurate and pedagogically sound? I'm guessing that they didn't see the need to review the videos and simply concentrated on whether all the words in the article were spelled correctly.
1. There's a separate video on the lac Operon. How many errors, flaws, or missed opportunities, can you spot?
2. Silly me. I always though it had something to do with the fact that two of the key intermediates (citrate and isocitrate) were tricarboxylic acids. Most of the others are dicarboxylic acids.
3. Maybe I'm quibbling. In my textbook I describe these reactions as "metabolically irreversible" because the activities of the enzymes are regulated. That's not the same as saying that the reactions are irreversible.
Students in my molecular evolution course have to write an essay. They can pick any topic they like as long as it's related to evolution and some controversy in the scientific literature. I have to approve the topic. The idea is that the students have to critically evaluate both sides of an issue and pick a side that they can defend.
The essays tell me a lot about what things are interesting in the course and how well the students understand the topics. Here are this year's topics.
Education: Misconceptions in Evolutionary Biology
Are Transposable Elements Junk?
RNA World Hypothesis
Evolutionary Psychology and Biology: A Comparison
The End for the Alternative Search for Complexity
C-Value Paradox: Why Junk DNA Looks So Good
Will Humans Ever Be Perfectly Evolved?
Epigenetic Inheritance: A Turning Point in Evolution?
Back to Basics (about evolutinary biology eduaction)
The Relationship between Natural Selection and Artificial Selection
Foreign Gene Incorporation in Agriculture and in the wild: Debunking Anti-GMO Rhetoric and the "Unnatural" Fallacy
Enhancers: An Evo-Devo Perspective
Will humans stop evolving?
Genomic Screening: Currently Not Worth the Trouble
The Decade Long Argument Over Junk
What Is a Gene?
Sex: Is It Really Advantageous?
A Critical Analysis of Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt; The Explosive origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
The Role of Natural Selection in the Process of Biological Human Evolution
The Struggle Between Humans and Bacterial Evolution
Drifting Away: Perspectives on Modern Evolution
The Continuing Struggle Against Junk DNA
The Evolution of Influenza A: Antigenic Drift at Work?
It's always fun to be quoted in The New York Times Magazine but there's a more serious issue to discuss. I'm referring to a brief article about online comments after Carl Zimmer published a piece on "Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?" a few weeks ago. If you read the comments under that article you'll discover that we have a lot of work to do if we are going to convince the general public that our genome is full of junk.
There's a robust pedagogical literature on misconceptions and how difficult it is for educators overcome them in the classroom. The current overwhelming consensus is that you have to address those misconceptions head-on and show why they are wrong. You are doomed to failure if you just try to correct misconceptions by teaching the correct idea in the hope that students will see the light all by themselves.
That's why you must "teach the controversy." This applies in spades to the evolution/creation debate. You can't expect creationists to abandon their misconceptions about evolution if all you do is expose them to the latest information about evolution and evolutionary theory. They are already armed with all kinds of objections, rationalizations, and misconceptions about evolution and they'll listen politely while saying to themselves that it's all a bunch of lies.
You need to show them why the idea of a 6000 year old Earth is wrong and why it's foolish to say there are no transitional fossils.
Lawrence Krauss makes the case in The New Yorker [Teaching Doubt].
One thing is certain: if our educational system does not honestly and explicitly promote the central tenet of science—that nothing is sacred—then we encourage myth and prejudice to endure. We need to equip our children with tools to avoid the mistakes of the past while constructing a better, and more sustainable, world for themselves and future generations. We won’t do that by dodging inevitable and important questions about facts and faith. Instead of punting on those questions, we owe it to the next generation to plant the seeds of doubt.
This approach works in most of the Western industrialized world but it probably can't work in America. That's because Americans have set up a system where you can't challenge religious beliefs in public schools because it's a violation of their Constitution. That's to bad because it means that science teachers can't do their job.
As the name implies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is a group of American scientists dedicated to "advancing" science. It was formed in 1848 and over the years it has evolved into a sophisticated lobby for advocating and defending science funding as well as an organization that promotes science to the general public. It publishes several journals, including Science and Science: Translational Medicine.
The new CEO and Executive Publisher of Science is Rush D. Holt, Jr.. He is the son of a former United States Senator (Rush D. Holt Sr.). Rush D. Holt Jr. obtained a Ph.D. in physics in 1981 and taught courses in physics, public policy, and religion at Swarthmore College from 1980 to 1986. He is a Quaker.
This post was prompted by a discussion I'm having with Jerry Coyne on whether he should be trying to censor university professors who teach various forms of creationism.
Most of us agree that there's a problem. A lot of what passes as science isn't being correctly communicated to the general public.
Lot's of people share the blame but I tend to focus on those people whose job is science communication. It must be true that science journalists aren't doing as good a job as they should.
A few years ago I attended a meeting on "The Two Cultures" in New York City. E.O. Wilson gave the plenary talk and he explained why everyone likes scenery that resembles the African savannah. It's because that's where humans originated [E.O. Wilson in New York]. The science journalists who were there applauded enthusiastically. I didn't.
Later on there was a session on science communication featuring a panel of science journalists. They insisted that the problems were not their fault. They can only rely on what scientists are telling them and that's what they report. Elizabeth Pennisi would be proud.
Carl Zimmer pointed out that it is important for science journalists to have a good source of scientists they can call on for advice whenever they are working on a new story. The other journalists didn't get it.
