Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Cultural Studies of Science Education 4/2019

25-07-2018 | Original Paper

Changing minds or rhetoric? How students use their many natures of science to talk about evolution

Author: Michael Kohut

Published in: Cultural Studies of Science Education | Issue 4/2019

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Recommendations for teaching the nature of science (NOS) are grounded in a deficit view of students and/or the public—wherein people accept pseudoscientific claims, particularly about evolution, because they do not adequately understand what counts as being “scientific.” Under the deficit view, correct views of science are defined by the normative claims of particular authorities, and public views are evaluated based on similarity to those authoritative claims. Such normative accounts have come under increasing criticism among researchers attentive to cultural dimensions of science education. Ethnographic fieldwork in eastern Tennessee, where evolution remains a highly salient topic, in churches and public spaces, gave me further reason to doubt the deficit account. In order to clarify the relationship between views on the NOS and beliefs about evolution, I interviewed students at a public high school in rural Tennessee and asked them to complete two surveys—on “Nature of Science” and “Beliefs about Origins”—which I developed in light of my earlier ethnographic fieldwork. In order to avoid the aforementioned deficit approach, I analyzed their responses using a cultural consensus analysis, which generates multiple “answer keys” based on participant agreement. I then interpreted the results of the cultural consensus analysis in the light of the student interviews. Drawing on Malinowski’s insights on studying myth, I paid attention not only to the content of statements with which students agreed, but also how such statements are used by students. I conclude that, irrespective of their position on evolution, the students draw on both cynical and celebratory ideas about science. However, they deploy those ideas differently, in ways that support their position on scientific assertions. These findings speak to a growing literature in NOS research that frames views about the NOS as argumentative resources. Students assign value to scientific claims through exchanges with other people. Ideas about science are recruited in these exchanges to support claims about which claims have scientific merit. Science educators should be aware of how ideas about science are deployed by students before figuring out how they should be taught.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Literature
go back to reference Forrest, B., & Gross, P. R. (2007). Creationism’s trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Forrest, B., & Gross, P. R. (2007). Creationism’s trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Howell, D. C. (2008). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Howell, D. C. (2008). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
go back to reference Kohut, M. (2016). Making evolutionists and creationists: The causes and consequences of evolution education in tennessee, 2009-2012. (PhD Dissertation), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Kohut, M. (2016). Making evolutionists and creationists: The causes and consequences of evolution education in tennessee, 2009-2012. (PhD Dissertation), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
go back to reference Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
go back to reference Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
go back to reference Mencken, H. L. (2006). A religious orgy in tennessee: A reporter’s account of the scopes monkey trial. Hoboken, N.J.: Melville House Pub. Mencken, H. L. (2006). A religious orgy in tennessee: A reporter’s account of the scopes monkey trial. Hoboken, N.J.: Melville House Pub.
go back to reference NAS. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NAS. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
go back to reference NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades k-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades k-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
go back to reference Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists: From scientific creationism to intelligent design (Expanded ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists: From scientific creationism to intelligent design (Expanded ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
go back to reference Pigliucci, M. (2002). Denying evolution: Creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Pigliucci, M. (2002). Denying evolution: Creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
go back to reference Ross, N. (2004). Culture & cognition: Implications for theory and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ross, N. (2004). Culture & cognition: Implications for theory and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
go back to reference Taber, K. S. (2013). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing representations of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef Taber, K. S. (2013). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing representations of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
go back to reference Toumey, C. P. (1994). God’s own scientists: Creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Toumey, C. P. (1994). God’s own scientists: Creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Metadata
Title
Changing minds or rhetoric? How students use their many natures of science to talk about evolution
Author
Michael Kohut
Publication date
25-07-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Cultural Studies of Science Education / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1871-1502
Electronic ISSN: 1871-1510
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9865-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Cultural Studies of Science Education 4/2019 Go to the issue