DOCSLIB.ORG

Science and Mathematics Education in Honors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science and Mathematics Education in Honors University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln NCHC Monographs Series National Collegiate Honors Council 2012 The Other Culture: Science and Mathematics Education in Honors Ellen B. Buckner University of South Alabama, [email protected] Keith Garbutt West Virginia University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcmono Buckner, Ellen B. and Garbutt, Keith, "The Other Culture: Science and Mathematics Education in Honors" (2012). NCHC Monographs Series. 19. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcmono/19 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the National Collegiate Honors Council at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in NCHC Monographs Series by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The Other Culture: Science and Mathematics Education in Honors NCHC Monograph Series The Other Culture: Science and Mathematics Education in Honors Ellen B. Buckner and Keith Garbutt, Editors National Collegiate Honors Council ISBN 978-0-983-5457-3-6 THE OTHER CULTURE: SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN HONORS Edited by Ellen B. Buckner and Keith Garbutt Jeffrey A. Portnoy Georgia Perimeter College [email protected] General Editor, NCHC Monograph Series Published in 2012 by National Collegiate Honors Council University of Nebraska–Lincoln 110 Neihardt Residence Center 540 N. 16th Street Lincoln, NE 68588-0627 (402) 472-9150 FAX: (402) 472-9152 Email: [email protected] http://www.NCHChonors.org © Copyright 2012 by National Collegiate Honors Council International Standard Book Number 978-0-983-5457-3-6 Production Editors: Cliff Jefferson and Mitch Pruitt Wake Up Graphics, Birmingham, AL Printed by EBSCO Media, Birmingham, AL TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . 5 Dail W. Mullins, Jr. Introduction . 7 Ellen B. Buckner and Keith Garbutt Section I: What is Science in Honors? Chapter 1: One Size Does Not Fit All: Science and Mathematics in Honors Programs and Colleges . 15 Keith Garbutt Chapter 2: Encouraging Scientific Thinking and Student Development . 25 Ellen B. Buckner Chapter 3: Information Literacy as a Co-requisite to Critical Thinking: A Librarian and Educator Partnership . 39 Paul Mussleman and Ellen B. Buckner Section II: Science and Society Chapter 4: SENCER: Honors Science for All Honors Students . 55 Mariah Birgen Chapter 5: Philosophy in the Service of Science: How Non-Science Honors Courses Can Use the Evolution-ID Controversy to Improve Scientific Literacy . 61 Thi Lam Chapter 6: Recovering Controversy: Teaching Controversy in the Honors Science Classroom . 73 Richard England Chapter 7: Science, Power, and Diversity: Bringing Science to Honors in an Interdisciplinary Format . 85 Bonnie K. Baxter and Bridget M. Newell Section III: Science and Mathematics in Honors for the Non-Science Student Chapter 8: Honors Science for the Non-Science-Bound Student: Where Have We Gone Wrong? . 105 Bradley R. Newcomer Chapter 9: Engaging the Honors Student in Lower-Division Mathematics . 117 Minerva Cordero, Theresa Jorgensen, and Barbara A. Shipman Chapter 10: Statistics in Honors: Teaching Students to Separate Truth from “Damned Lies” . 139 Lisa W. Kay 3 Chapter 11: Is Honors General Chemistry Simply More Quantum Mechanics? . 153 Joe L. March Section IV: Science in Honors for the Science Student Chapter 12: Communicating Science: An Approach to Teaching Technical Communication in a Science and Technology Honors Program . 167 Cynthia Ryan, Michele Gould, and Diane C. Tucker Chapter 13: Designing Independent Honors Projects in Mathematics . 185 Minerva Cordero, Theresa Jorgensen, and Barbara A. Shipman Chapter 14: Honors Senior Theses Are ABET Friendly: Developing a Process to Meet Accreditation Requirements . 197 Michael Doran Section V: Interdisciplinary Approaches in Honors Science Curricula Chapter 15: Interdisciplinary Science Curricula in Honors . 209 Dail W. Mullins, Jr. Chapter 16: The Science of Humor: An Interdisciplinary Honors Course . 229 Michael K. Cundall, Jr. Chapter 17: An Interdisciplinary Understanding of a Disease: Project for an Honors-Embedded Biochemistry Course . 239 Kevin M. Williams Section VI: Thinking like a Scientist: A Toolkit Chapter 18: Replacing Appearance with Reality: What Should Distinguish Science in an Honors Program? . 253 Larry J. Crockett Chapter 19: Confronting Pseudoscience: An Honors Course in Critical Thinking . 263 Keith Garbutt Chapter 20: Science Education: The Perils of Scientific Illiteracy, the Promise of Science Education . 275 Glenn M. Sanford Acknowledgements . 287 Ellen B. Buckner and Keith Garbutt About the Authors . 289 4 PREFACE The National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) has established over the years twenty-two standing committees, only one of which deals explicitly with curricular disciplines: the Science and Mathematics Committee. It is a widespread and relatively accurate perception among NCHC members that the academic strengths of most honors programs are focused primarily in the humanities, with also a sizeable fraction in the social and behavioral sciences. In a survey conducted several years ago for the NCHC1 for example, only fifteen percent of honors administrators reported having an academic background in the natural sciences, and three percent in mathematics. Forty-nine percent listed an academic affiliation in the humanities, and twenty-four per- cent in the social and behavioral sciences. Several reasons are likely for the apparent modest involvement of faculty from the natural sciences and mathematics in honors programs, chief among these being the fact that these disciplines may be per- ceived—if erroneously—by their practitioners to be less conducive to the small group discussion format favored in honors environments gen- erally. Perhaps a more difficult problem to resolve is the fact that tenure-track faculty in the natural sciences may be subject to rigid time constraints vis-a-vis laboratory or field research that, together with the complementary duties of administering often sizeable research grants, can detract from the availability of such faculty for the kind of intense and time-consuming involvement with undergraduate students that is characteristic of honors coursework. Finally, it should be said that— with some exceptions, obviously—departments of natural science and their faculty often do not put as high a premium on excellence or inno- vation in teaching, perhaps in part because they place a greater empha- sis on research activities, given the appreciable sources of external funding available in these disciplines, relative to the humanities and even the social sciences. One adverse consequence of this situation, of course, is that honors programs often have difficulty arranging for honors sections of course- work in mathematics and the natural sciences, and especially in arrang- ing for the participation of faculty from these disciplines in team- taught, interdisciplinary offerings. The implementation of this latter pedagogical tool—which is becoming increasingly popular with some honors programs—may also encounter problems if participating faculty from the natural sciences insist upon incorporating laboratory or field work into the curriculum, since such facilities may not be read- ily available to humanities-based programs. 5 PREFACE While national data on the declared majors of honors students are apparently not available, U. S. Department of Education statistics on bachelor’s degrees awarded by field for all students indicate that the percentage choosing to major in the natural sciences and mathematics averaged 10.4 between 1995 and 2000, while the corresponding value for humanities majors was 6.1 percent.2 While it cannot be known if stu- dents majoring in the natural sciences and mathematics are less inclined to participate in honors programs that have a strong humani- ties-based focus, there is no reason to suspect that their numbers are lower in honors programs generally. It is a matter of interest then to all honors administrators and faculty to understand how programs that have been successful in incorporating the natural sciences and mathe- matics into their curricula have accomplished this, and what ideas and options might be available to those still seeking to achieve such a disci- plinary integration. It is axiomatic in honors education that no two honors programs in the country are identical. Whether literally true or not, this diversity of form and function in honors education is at once both a great source of inspiration and ideas for these many programs—especially those in the formative stages—as well as a quite tangible barrier to the writers of monographs such as this. These authors strive to make some sense of this potpourri of organizational and pedagogic matters and to pro- vide useful generic guidelines and practical help to the administrators and faculty of these many program types. I think you will find that the editors and authors of the present monograph have succeeded admirably in this task. —Dail W. Mullins, Jr. Notes 1Survey by Ada Long in 1995. 2Chronicle of Higher Education Annual Almanac, 1999–2000; 2000–2001; 2001–2002; 2002–2003. 6 INTRODUCTION The Other Culture: Science and Mathematics Education in Honors “I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question— such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read?—not more than one in ten of the highly educated would
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover Or Eliminate God?
    University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 4 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Article 5 January 2009 Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God? Peter M.J. Hess Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp Part of the First Amendment Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter M. Hess, Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God?, 4 U. ST. THOMAS J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 102 (2009). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp/vol4/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. For more information, please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. CREATION, DESIGN AND EVOLUTION: CAN SCIENCE DISCOVER OR ELIMINATE GOD? PETER M. J. HESS, PH.D.* NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork." Psalms 19:1 INTRODUCTION: THE PLAYING OUT OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT IN THE WEST Every culture has its views about the universe, about the human person, and about the great metaphysical questions that confront us. How ought we to think about the relationship between cosmology, anthropology, and theology? This may be a challenge for us in our increasingly secular post- modem culture, but for most of human history it was not an issue. In the Judeo-Christian tradition these areas of human reflection were naturally bound up together, as in the Hebrew psalmist's proto-statement of the argument from design: "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork."' The scholastic university culture of the High Middle Ages held as its ideal the "unity of knowledge," or unitas scientiae, approaching the study of the universe as a coherent and knowable whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution
    Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science of the College of Arts and Sciences by Misook Gwon, M.A. Political Science, University of Cincinnati December 2012 Committee Chair: Stephen T. Mockabee, PhD ABSTRACT The theory of evolution has long generated controversy in American society, but Americans‘ attitudes about human evolution are often neglected in studies of ―culture wars‖ and the nature of mass belief systems more generally (Berkman and Plutzer 2010; Freeland and Houston 2009). Gallup and other survey organizations have polled about evolution, but offered limited response categories that mask complexity in public opinion (Bishop 2006; Moore 2008). The main problems concerning the leading survey questions about evolution are: first, questions measure only a single dimension, thus they ignore the potential for multidimensionality in people‘s attitudes. Second, depending on question wording and response options, the results of public opinion surveys vary by polling groups. This is an example of measurement error which misleads the interpretation and impression of American public opinion on the origin of humankind. A number of studies have analyzed Americans‘ beliefs about evolution and hypothesized about the influential effects of several factors (Deckman 2002; Mazur 2005; Mooney 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Newport 2006; Forrest 2007; Nisbet and Goidel 2007; Scott 2009). However, there remains a lack of complete understanding of what Americans know and believe about human evolution. Given the salience of this issue and the significant influence of public opinion on policy-making in America (Page and Shapiro 1992; Stimson 2004; Newport 2004), the measurement error and explanation of polling results on controversial issues related to this topic are in need of clarification.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2007 Beacon
    The BEACON News from The Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education Volume XI, No. 4 Copyright © December 2007 In this issue: President’s Message—Dave Thomas, Toon by Trever Copyright Albuquerque Journal, 11-14-07—John Trever, used with permission, A Better Metric—Walt Murfin,Flock of Dodos (film) coming in February—see page 8. PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE ingly explained how Behe was misrepresenting his actual position: “What I wrote was that this Things are once again heating up in the is a machine that looks like it was designed by never-ending assault on science education. a human. But that doesn’t mean that it was And this week (I’m writing this mid-November) designed, that is, the product of Intelligent De- included several events that bring the issue sign. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of into sharp focus. The most significant of these something that arose by evolution.” And then, was the long-awaited airing of the PBS/NOVA DeRosier showed real microphotographs of an special on the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School assembly containing a subset of the same pro- District court case of 2005, titled “Judgment teins forming the base of the flagellum: “This is Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” (aired Novem- a structure found, for example, in Yersinia Pestis, ber 13, 2007). the bacterium that causes the Bubonic Plague. The two-hour production was splendid. Look at the similarities. … It’s like—sort of like At times it was like a biology class most of us a syringe… So, indeed, the [flagellum] structure would have been delighted to attend.
    [Show full text]
  • Barbara Carroll Forrest, Ph.D
    Barbara Carroll Forrest, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy Department of History and Political Science http://www.selu.edu/acad_research/depts/hist_ps/faculty/bio/forrest.html Southeastern Louisiana University http://www.selu.edu/index.html Curriculum Vitae (Abridged) — July 2007 SLU 10484 Websites: University Station http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/bforrest/ Hammond, LA 70402 http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/ E–mail: [email protected] Voice: 985–549–5097 Fax: 985–549–2012 Biosketch Barbara Forrest is a Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at Southeastern Louisiana University. She is the co-author with Paul R. Gross of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford University Press, 2004; 2007, 2nd ed.), which details the political and religious aims of the intelligent design creationist movement. She served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the first legal case involving intelligent design, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, which originated in Dover, PA, and was resolved with a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in December 2005. She is a member of the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education and the National Advisory Council of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. She has appeared on Larry King Live, ABC's Nightline, and the BBC’s Horizon documentary about the Kitzmiller trial, “A War on Science.” Her radio interviews include NPR's Science Friday with Ira Flatow and Americans United’s Culture Shocks with Barry Lynn. She is the 2006 co-recipient with Brown University cell biologist Kenneth Miller of the American Society for Cell Biology’s Public Service Award.
    [Show full text]
  • Cinema and the Kansas/Plains Past
    Cinema and the Kansas/Plains Past Film Reviews edited and introduced by Thomas Prasch s any Kansan who crosses a border knows—as soon as it occurs to some wit to say something in that familiar “not in Kansas anymore” range—there is one universal association everyone has with the Kansas past: The Wizard of AOz (1939). And, with Wicked still packing houses on Broadway, with Oz references proliferating in every sphere of popular culture (from an homage episode of the television series Scrubs to characters from Oz materializing in the “I’m Glad I’m Gay” musical number of Queer Duck: The Movie [2006]), that is unlikely to change soon. It says something about the depth of Ozian references that it now seems impossible even to talk about the war in Iraq without dropping an allusion to the classic fi lm: the Emerald City serves as metaphor for the illusions and isolated character of American policy in Iraq in Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s recent critique Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Iraq’s Green Zone (2006), while White House spokes- person Tony Snow has lately urged reporters: “Please avoid the idea that Iraq is like Oz, and one day it’s going to be black and white and the next day you’re going to wake up and it’s color” (White House Press Briefi ng, May 8, 2007). Wherever one fi nds a yellow brick road or a wizard behind the curtain, someone is thinking of Kansas. Insofar as Kansas history fi gures into the mainstream imaginary in any other signifi cant way, it is as that mythologized repository of changeless American midwestern values.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality
    Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools By Casey Luskin M.S., J.D., ESQ Trinity Law Review Fall, 2015 Volume 21, Issue 1, Pp. 130-233 Published by Trinity Law School lawschool.tiu.edu '$5:,1¶632,621('75(($7+(,67,& $'92&$&<$1'7+(&2167,787,21$/,7<2) 7($&+,1*(92/87,21,138%/,&6&+22/6 &$6(</86.,1 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KHWHDFKLQJRIELRORJLFDORULJLQVLQSXEOLFVFKRROVLVDFRQWHQWLRXV DQGKLJKO\GHEDWHGDUHDRIWKHODZ,IWKHUHLVDQ\IL[HGVWDURIWKLVHYROYLQJ OHJDO ILHOG LW LV WKH 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW¶V KROGLQJ LQ Epperson v. ArkansasWKDW³>W@KH)LUVW$PHQGPHQWPDQGDWHVJRYHUQPHQWDOQHXWUDOLW\ EHWZHHQUHOLJLRQDQGUHOLJLRQDQGEHWZHHQUHOLJLRQDQGQRQUHOLJLRQ´ )ROORZLQJWKLVPDQGDWHIRUVWDWHQHXWUDOLW\LQHYROXWLRQHGXFDWLRQ YDULRXVFRXUWVDQGOHJDOVFKRODUVKDYHRSSRVHGWKHWHDFKLQJRIDOWHUQDWLYHV WR HYROXWLRQ E\ FLWLQJ DQ KLVWRULFDO FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ RSSRVLWLRQ WR HYROXWLRQ DQG WKH DGYRFDF\ RI ³IXQGDPHQWDOLVW´ UHOLJLRQ 2QH DXWKRU FRQWHQGVWKDWDWWHPSWVWRWHDFKQRQHYROXWLRQDU\YLHZSRLQWVRIELRORJLFDO RULJLQV DUHXQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO EHFDXVH VXFK YLHZSRLQWVDUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK UHOLJLRQ PDNLQJ WKHP ³>I@UXLW RI WKH SRLVRQ WUHH´ $QRWKHU VFKRODU VLPLODUO\VXJJHVWVWKDWVRPHHGXFDWLRQDOSROLFLHVWKDWVDQFWLRQFULWLTXHRI HYROXWLRQ HQWDLO ³JRYHUQPHQW PHDVXUHVWKDW DULVH IURP D FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ SUREOHPDWLFKLVWRU\´DQGDUHWKHUHIRUH³WDLQWHGIUXLWRIWKHSRLVRQRXV WUHH´ .ULVWL / %RZPDQ ZDUQV WKDW XQGHU FXUUHQW ODZ WKH ³UHOLJLRXV $WWRUQH\DW/DZ5HVHDUFK&RRUGLQDWRU'LVFRYHU\,QVWLWXWH6HDWWOH:$%6 8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD6DQ'LHJR068QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD6DQ'LHJR-' 8QLYHUVLW\RI6DQ'LHJR7KHDXWKRUWKDQNV$QLND6PLWK'DYLG'H:ROI6DUDK&KDIIHH
    [Show full text]
  • Open Thesis FINAL.Pdf
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education INTELLLIGENT DESIGN AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY: THE CASE OF KANSAS A Thesis in Educational Theory and Policy by John Yoshito Jones © 2007 John Yoshito Jones Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2007 ii The thesis of John Yoshito Jones was reviewed and approved* by the following: David A. Gamson Associate Professor of Education Thesis Adviser Chair of Committee Mindy L. Kornhaber Associate Professor of Education Dana L. Mitra Assistant Professor of Education Hiroshi Ohmoto Professor of Geochemistry Jacqueline Stefkovich Professor of Education Head of the Department of Education Policy Studies *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Advocates of an alternative explanation of life’s origins, Intelligent Design, have lobbied hard since the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which banned “creation science” from public schools, to effect educational policy change through local and state-level school boards. This study examines one such lobbying effort, the 2005 attempt to modify the Kansas Curricular Standards for Science so that biological evolution is actively challenged in the classroom, by analyzing the actions and motivations of several members of the Kansas Board of Education as well as non-Board participants through personal interviews and contempoary media reports. Board minutes from 1999 to 2007 and transcripts from the Board’s May, 2005, public hearings on evolution are also analyzed. This study asks, “what strategies have creationists developed in the wake of the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision striking down creation science and how have those strategies been employed?” The question’s presumption, that Intelligent Design advocates have employed new strategies to advance a creationist agenda, is validated in the study through coding the language used by the interviewees, the Board minutes, and hearings transcripts, as well as a review of contemporary media coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Toolkit Is How to Think About Things in the World Over a Wide Range of Magnitudes and Time Scales
    226 WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT? The term 'scientific"is to be understood in a broad sense as the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be the human spirit, the role of great people in history, or the structure of DNA. A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world. [Thanks to Steven Pinker for suggesting this year's Edge Question and to Daniel Kahneman for advice on its presentation.] 158 CONTRIBUTORS (109,600 words): Richard Thaler, Brian Eno, J. Craig Venter, Martin Rees, Mahzarin Banaji, V.S. Ramachandran, Stefano Boeri, Nigel Goldenfeld, Gary Marcus, Andrew Revkin, Stuart Firestein, Beatrice Golomb, Diane Halpern, Kevin Hand, Barry Smith, Kevin Hand, Garrett Lisi, David Dalrymple, Xeni Jardin, Seth Lloyd, Brian Knutson, Carl Page, Victoria Stodden, David Rowan, Hazel Rose Markus & Alana Conner, Fiery Cushman, David Eagleman, Joan Chiao, Max Tegmark, Tecumseh Fitch, Joshua Greene, Stephon Alexander, Gregory Cochran, Tor Norretranders , Laurence Smith, Carl Zimmer, Roger Highfield, Marcelo Gleiser, Richard Saul Wurman, Anthony Aguirre, Sam Harris, P.Z. Myers, Sue Blackmore, Bart Kosko, David Buss, John Tooby, Eduardo Salcedo-Albaran, Paul Bloom, Evgeny Morozov, Mark Pagel, Kathryn Schulz, Ernst Pöppel, Tania Lombrozo, Paul Saffo, Jay Rosen, Timothy Taylor, Jonah Lehrer, Marco Iacoboni, Dave Winer, George Church, Kai Krause, Gloria Origgi, Tom Standage, Vinod Khosla, Dan Sperber, Geoffrey Miller, Satyajit Das, Alun Anderson, Eric Topol, Amanda Gefter, Scott D.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing up to Experts: the Politics of Public Education
    STANDING UP TO EXPERTS: THE POLITICS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION Scott Thurman, B.F.A. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF FINE ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS December 2010 APPROVED: Ben Levin, Major Professor C. Melinda Levin, Committee Member and Chair of Department of Radio, Television and Film Ron Wetherington, Committee Member James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies Thurman, Scott. Standing Up to Experts: The Politics of Public Education. Master of Fine Arts (Radio, Television and Film), December 2010, 55 pp., bibliography, 1 title. In a small room in Austin, Texas, a group of 15 people are single-handedly deciding what is taught to the next generation of American children. The highly politicized 15 member Texas Board of Education is currently going through the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting the teaching and textbook standards for its nearly 5 million schoolchildren. Texas is also unbelievably influential on the standards that textbook publishers use as a basis for their textbooks nationwide. Over the last 10 years, the textbooks adopted by this board found their way in upwards of 65% of American classrooms. My goal is to shed light on this important issue and the key players in this process – I explain their goals, explore the scope of their influence, and delve into the personal motivations behind their actions, which will affect public education throughout the country. Copyright 2010 by Scott Thurman
    [Show full text]
  • December 2008
    IGDP in Ecology Newsletter December 2008 Volume 5 No 3 Know of any accomplishments by Ecology graduate students, postdocs or faculty? Send them along to Stephanie Lessard-Pilon ([email protected]) to have these accomplishments published in the newsletter! New student-taught class a success -Ruscena Wiederholt Comments from people involved with the course: A student-organized introductory Ecology course, called Concepts in Ecology (ECLGY “It was a great opportunity to get some 597E), was offered for the first time this Fall. lecturing experience, especially on The objective of the course was to provide an topics I hadn't taught before, and the overview of basic ecological concepts and immediate feedback from the theory for new Ecology graduate students or students was extremely helpful”. -Angie Luis interested students from other departments. (instructor) The course was taught by a number of Ecology graduate students and post-docs “I thought it was an excellent course and a and covered a variety of topics including great idea. My liberal arts education in population, community, and quantitative undergrad was great in a lot of ways, but it ecology. When possible, the course was weak in ecology. This class allowed me paralleled the topics discussed in Classical to learn about the fundamentals of the Ecology in order to provide background on science. I used what I learned in this class in the classic papers and articles discussed that my classical ecology course every week, and week. also in designing my own research proposal. I also think it is a great opportunity to meet The course was the brainchild of Marc other ecology colleagues, from the first year Goebel and Stephanie Lessard-Pilon, who students taking the class to the students also organized and administrated it.
    [Show full text]
  • Etdkwasiborski.Pdf (581.4Kb)
    FROM WEDGE STRATEGY TO KITZMILLER: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT SERIES By Victoria Kwasiborski Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Science and Technology Studies Matthew Goodrum, Chairman Barbara Allen Barbara Reeves Lee Zwanziger 7 August 2007 Blacksburg and Alexandria, Virginia Keywords: Intelligent Design, Rhetoric, Diction Copyright 2007, Victoria Kwasiborski FROM WEDGE STRATEGY TO KITZMILLER: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT SERIES By Victoria Kwasiborski Abstract Many scientific claims being made today are not based on established scientific principles. They are a result of motivating factors that include media, political influences, legal and social issues, economic pursuits, the experimental procedure itself, peer review, and, central to this thesis, the lack of science education of the public. Intelligent Design, a much discussed potential theory of biological origins is one of these claims. Intelligent Design offers an array of scientific and probabilistic arguments supporting the concept that an intelligent agency better accounts for certain aspects of the natural world. The response and reaction to this theory within the science, political, education and religious communities has been increasingly expressive. Some believe that Intelligent Design is a threat to Darwinian evolution, some argue that teaching ID as an evolutionary theory is "only fair." And all believe the stakes are high—to the victor goes the privilege of teaching their theory as biology in the public school classroom. This study of Intelligent Design is not an extensive quantitative review of primary materials in the scientific debate, or qualitative reviews of sweeping breadth of religious- based theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Creationism and Intelligent Design
    he name DGGTB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Theorie Deutsche Gesellschaft für der Biologie; German Society for the History and Philosophy of Biology) reflT ects recent history as well as German tradition. The Society is a relatively Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie late addition to a series of German societies of science and medicine that began with the “Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften”, founded in 1910 by Leipzig University’s Karl Annals of the History Sudhoff (1853-1938), who wrote: “We want to establish a ‘German’ society in order to gather German-speaking historians together in our special and Philosophy of Biology disciplines so that they form the core of an international society…”. Yet Sudhoff, at this time of burgeoning academic internationalism, was “quite Volume 19 (2014) willing” to accommodate the wishes of a number of founding members and “drop the word German in the title of the Society and have it merge formerly Jahrbuch für with an international society”. The founding and naming of the Society at Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie that time derived from a specifi c set of historical circumstances, and the same was true some 80 years later when in 1991, in the wake of German Elizabeth Watts reunifi cation, the “Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie” was founded. From the start, the Society has been committed Analysis of Creationism in the United States to bringing studies in the history and philosophy of biology to a wide from Scopes (1925) to Kitzmiller (2005) and its audience, using for this purpose its Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Theorie Effect on the Nation’s Science Education System der Biologie.
    [Show full text]