Lerner Lawrence L. (2000). Good Science, Bad Science : Teaching Evolution in the States. Washington DC : Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. En ligne : <http://eric.ed.gov/ERIC ... CServlet?accno=ED447099>.
Added by: Marie Musset (13 Oct 2008 17:31:08 Europe/Paris) Last edited by: Marie Musset (27 May 2009 10:42:56 Europe/Paris)
|Resource type: Report/Documentation
BibTeX citation key: Lerner2000a
Keywords: enseignement de l'Ă©volution, Ă‰tats-Unis
Publisher: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (Washington DC)
Views index: 14%
Popularity index: 3.5%
|URLs http://eric.ed.gov ... let?accno=ED447099|
"This report discusses evolution in science education, evaluating the state-by-state treatment of evolution in science standards. It explains the role of evolution as an organizing principle for all the historical sciences. Seven sections include: "Introduction" (the key role of evolution in the sciences); "How Do Good Standards Treat Biological Evolution?" (controversial versus consensual knowledge and why students should learn about evolution); "Extrascientific Issues" (e.g., the diversity of anti-evolutionists, why anti-evolutionism persists, and how science standards reflect creationist pressures); "Evaluation of State Standards" (very good to excellent, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, useless or absent, and disgraceful); "Sample Standards"; "Further Analysis" (grades for science standards as a whole); and "Conclusions." Overall, 31 states do at least a satisfactory job of handling the central organizing principle of the historical sciences, 10 states do an excellent or very good job of presenting evolution, and 21 states do a good or satisfactory job. More than one-third of states do not do a satisfactory job. Appended are: two treatment models of evolution: excerpts from California and North Carolina science standards; evolution and its discontents; state documents examined; and ratings of state science standards overall. An annotated bibliography is included."
Added by: AgnĂ¨s Cavet Last edited by: Marie Musset