For each person, we first searched for their school, and sought to locate a current school staff directory. If we found a match for the teacher anywhere on the school web site, that non-respondent was confirmed as eligible.
In some cases, we found a teacher in the same subject and same first name, but with a different last name. If we were able to absolutely confirm that teacher had recently changed names e. If we did not find the teacher, we did two broader web searches. These were confirmed as ineligible. We recorded the following outcomes:. The final results of the audit are summarized in Table Every individual on the initial mailing list of names and addresses was assigned a disposition code.
A survey was considered complete if the respondent answered questions from at least two of the following three question groups: Question 1, which asked teachers how many class hours they devoted to each of nine topics appearing on the second page of the paper questionnaire ; a group of attitude questions appearing on pages 7—8 of the written questionnaire; and a group of demographic and background variables on pages 9 and 11 of the paper questionnaire. A survey was considered partially complete if the respondent answered at least how many class hours they devoted to each of nine topics appearing on the second page of the paper questionnaire.
A summary of the dispositions appears in Table We utilize the response rate definitions published by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. These require an estimate of the percentage of all non-respondents who are eligible or non-eligible e. This quantity, referred to as e, was estimated from a detailed audit of non-respondents. This is interpreted as the percentage of all eligible respondents who submitted a usable questionnaire complete or partially complete.
Respondents who returned questionnaires that are blank or fail to qualify as partial, are considered non-respondents. The details of the response rate calculation are reported in Table Response rates can be broken down and estimated for different groups, providing that there are data for non-respondents as well as respondents.
As a result, we cannot test for differences based on questionnaire items we lack information on seniority, degrees earned, religiosity, and so on for all non-respondents.
Table 15 reports on eight such comparisons. Using the salutations Mr. Smith, for example. Footnote 7. Note that some of these additional returns were paper surveys returned only after teachers received an email announcing the availability of a web survey.
Note, however, that because charters still represent a tiny slice of the public school market, raising their response rate to the overall average would have only increased the number of surveys completed by charter school teachers by three or four. School demographics As in previous surveys we find lower response rates from teachers working in schools with medium or large minority populations. Urbanism Finally, response rates did not differ substantially by urbanism except for schools in central cities with populations exceeding , Overall, we uncovered systematic differences.
By and large these are modest in magnitude and do not introduce major distortions in the data. However, since these individual differences might be additive e.
Table 16 reports a logistic regression model in which the dependent variable is the submission of a usable survey scored 1, all other dispositions scored 0, with confirmed ineligible respondents dropped from the analysis. This confirms most of the observational difference reported in Table Teachers at schools with sizable Black and Hispanic presence in the student body are also under represented odds rations below 1.
However, after controlling for student body composition, the effects of school lunch eligibility and urbanism are diminished. Propensity scores We use this model to calculate the probability to respond for all original members of the sample. That allows us to calculate the response propensity for all respondents. Those whose characteristics make them unlikely to respond must, therefore, speak on behalf of more non-respondents.
We use the inverse of the propensity as a second-stage weighting adjustment. Analysis weights were constructed in a two-stage process. A base weight adjusts for possible under-coverage by the sample supplier and the non-response adjustment balances the sample based on characteristics that are predictive of non-response e.
We assume that biology teachers constitute the same share of high school faculty in each state. It follows that the distribution across states in the MDR database should be proportional to the number of teachers in each state. If not, adjustment is necessary to make the sample fully representative. This was standardized to have a mean of 1. Non - response calibration The second stage weight is based on the logistic regression model reported in Table The weights range from 0. Ninety percent of the cases have weights between 0.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Reprints and Permissions. Plutzer, E. Teaching evolution in U. Evo Edu Outreach 13, 14 Download citation. Received : 12 April Accepted : 15 May Published : 09 June Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:. Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Skip to main content. Search all BMC articles Search. Download PDF. Abstract Background Over a decade ago, the first nationally representative probability survey concerning the teaching of evolution revealed disquieting facts about evolution education in the United States.
Results We find substantial reductions in overtly creationist instruction and in the number of teachers who send mixed messages that legitimate creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary biology. Conclusion Adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards, along with improvements in pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher professional development, appears to have contributed to a large reduction in both creationist instruction and mixed messages that could lead students to think that creationism is a scientific perspective.
Background Over a decade ago, the first nationally representative probability survey concerning the teaching of evolution revealed disquieting facts about evolution education in the United States. We put these two possibilities—improvement in evolution education or not—to the test by answering four key questions: Is evolution being taught more accurately and completely today than in ?
Methods Fielded between February and May of , the Survey of American Science Teachers included both a high school and a middle school sample. Results In comparing the statistics from the sample of high school biology teachers to the corresponding statistics from , we find some similarities but also some important changes.
Table 1 Hours reported as devoted to human evolution and general evolution in high school biology classes column percentages Full size table. Table 2 Reported support of key positions advanced by the National Academy of Sciences and other organizations column percentages Full size table. Table 3 Hours reported devoted to creationism or intelligent design column percentages Full size table. Table 4 Teacher-reported orientations to discussing creationism or intelligent design column percentages Full size table.
Full size image. Table 5 Summary of reported teacher emphasis when teaching evolution, by current NGSS status of their state column percentages Full size table. Table 6 Summary of reported teacher emphasis when teaching evolution, by teaching status in column percentages Full size table.
Table 8 Summary of reported teacher emphasis when teaching evolution, by reported previous coursework and professional development column percentages Full size table.
Table 9 Mean number of reported college and professional development courses, by teaching status in and state NGSS adoption Full size table. Table 10 Personal beliefs about creationism and the Bible. Percentage of teachers who endorse each statement, by teaching classification Full size table.
Post Apr. Taylor, 30 Years After Edwards v. Aguillard, U. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. Dover Area School Dist. Arkansas Bd. See also Intelligent Design, Evolution Res. Supp at See also Jay D. Drew Desilver, U. Megan Sullivan is a 3L J. She spends what little remaining free time she has performing with her local community theater. Megan is originally from Foxborough, Skip to main content.
New Articles. Swirsky and Adam S. Villalobos and Ayumary M. Tea and Kelsi E. Heiden and Audrey R. Congress Passes Wochner and Laurie B. Walsh Jr and Jeffery R. Swor and Rachel L. Kennedy, Jr. Rinearson and Andrew M. Adler What is an organization required to do in Europe if it engages in Zetoony Computing on the Edge by: Robert M. Kamer and Aubrey A. Slack and Peter A. Paolillo and Ellen L.
Mitchell and F. Delaney and Kristina M. Kahlon and Aron C. Thomas and Michael P. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator. My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of public-high-school biology teachers done in , the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology.
And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. Some educators in this ambivalent 60 percent tend to teach evolution only as it applies to molecular biology, Plutzer said, but not the macroevolution of species.
This seems like what happened to me. Others distance themselves from the material even as they tell students it will be on a standardized test. Some of these teachers might even introduce evolutionary ideas such as natural selection and microevolution.
But they skip the part we skipped—the monkey part. Elected officials? Academic experts? What role if any should the courts play in policing such decisions? In the next four decades, the legal playing field changed dramatically.
It followed that teaching the biblical creation story as a true account of human origins was out of the question. To be constitutional:. The answer, in a nutshell, is that creationism went underground. Once the state could neither teach biblical creationism nor categorically forbid the teaching of evolution, creationists turned to new strategies.
In McLean v.
0コメント