Must Evolution Education that Aims at Belief Be Indoctrinating?

Mike U. Smith, Harvey Siegel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Can a teacher aim for students to believe evolution without indoctrinating them? Recent discussions of indoctrination in evolution education suggest that such teaching must inevitably indoctrinate but is “warranted” in some cases; while science educators concerned about teaching for belief argue that such teaching is indoctrinating and is thus to be avoided. In this paper, we consider the argument for the inevitability of indoctrination and for “warranted indoctrination,” argue that the main cost of the latter is the abandonment of the commonly understood negative connotation of “indoctrination,” and offer an account that honors the strengths of that argument but avoids that cost. Assuming that aiming for belief change in students is valuable at least in part because it is more likely than understanding alone to lead to action, we then offer and defend a model of such evolution teaching that is non-indoctrinating and contrast it with two others that are problematically indoctrinating.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1235-1247
Number of pages13
JournalScience and Education
Volume28
Issue number9-10
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2019

Fingerprint

Teaching
education
costs
honor
student
educator
teacher
science

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

Must Evolution Education that Aims at Belief Be Indoctrinating? / Smith, Mike U.; Siegel, Harvey.

In: Science and Education, Vol. 28, No. 9-10, 01.12.2019, p. 1235-1247.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1f383eaf4a2748acaa0b6fa334c6faca,
title = "Must Evolution Education that Aims at Belief Be Indoctrinating?",
abstract = "Can a teacher aim for students to believe evolution without indoctrinating them? Recent discussions of indoctrination in evolution education suggest that such teaching must inevitably indoctrinate but is “warranted” in some cases; while science educators concerned about teaching for belief argue that such teaching is indoctrinating and is thus to be avoided. In this paper, we consider the argument for the inevitability of indoctrination and for “warranted indoctrination,” argue that the main cost of the latter is the abandonment of the commonly understood negative connotation of “indoctrination,” and offer an account that honors the strengths of that argument but avoids that cost. Assuming that aiming for belief change in students is valuable at least in part because it is more likely than understanding alone to lead to action, we then offer and defend a model of such evolution teaching that is non-indoctrinating and contrast it with two others that are problematically indoctrinating.",
author = "Smith, {Mike U.} and Harvey Siegel",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11191-019-00095-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1235--1247",
journal = "Science and Education",
issn = "0926-7220",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "9-10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Must Evolution Education that Aims at Belief Be Indoctrinating?

AU - Smith, Mike U.

AU - Siegel, Harvey

PY - 2019/12/1

Y1 - 2019/12/1

N2 - Can a teacher aim for students to believe evolution without indoctrinating them? Recent discussions of indoctrination in evolution education suggest that such teaching must inevitably indoctrinate but is “warranted” in some cases; while science educators concerned about teaching for belief argue that such teaching is indoctrinating and is thus to be avoided. In this paper, we consider the argument for the inevitability of indoctrination and for “warranted indoctrination,” argue that the main cost of the latter is the abandonment of the commonly understood negative connotation of “indoctrination,” and offer an account that honors the strengths of that argument but avoids that cost. Assuming that aiming for belief change in students is valuable at least in part because it is more likely than understanding alone to lead to action, we then offer and defend a model of such evolution teaching that is non-indoctrinating and contrast it with two others that are problematically indoctrinating.

AB - Can a teacher aim for students to believe evolution without indoctrinating them? Recent discussions of indoctrination in evolution education suggest that such teaching must inevitably indoctrinate but is “warranted” in some cases; while science educators concerned about teaching for belief argue that such teaching is indoctrinating and is thus to be avoided. In this paper, we consider the argument for the inevitability of indoctrination and for “warranted indoctrination,” argue that the main cost of the latter is the abandonment of the commonly understood negative connotation of “indoctrination,” and offer an account that honors the strengths of that argument but avoids that cost. Assuming that aiming for belief change in students is valuable at least in part because it is more likely than understanding alone to lead to action, we then offer and defend a model of such evolution teaching that is non-indoctrinating and contrast it with two others that are problematically indoctrinating.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075930744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075930744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11191-019-00095-5

DO - 10.1007/s11191-019-00095-5

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85075930744

VL - 28

SP - 1235

EP - 1247

JO - Science and Education

JF - Science and Education

SN - 0926-7220

IS - 9-10

ER -