EDUC 897 - Spring 2005 - CURRICULUM INQUIRY   
(click above for Homepage of links & pages on this Unix server)

click here for Class Web on the Sharepoint server
(Webtalk, Miniprojects, etc.)

Reading For Thursday, March 17

  1. Evolution Controversy

    1. in the news

      1. assigned

        1. National

          1. Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes

          2. Editorial: Afraid to Discuss Evolution

          3. Larson: If It's Supernatural It Isn't Science

          4. In Texas, a Darwinian Debate

        2. Local / Regional

          1. DE: Local creation scientists bring passion to evolution debate

          2. Cecil County - creationism

          3. Pa. Neighbors Feud Over Darwin, 'Design'

      2. optional supplements

        1. Congressional Record - Santorum Amendment on Evolution

        2. New SAT Questions Replace Evolution with Creation.pdf

    2. EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD -- abridged for EDUC 897

    3. Weaver: Dialectic and Rhetoric at Dayton, Tenn. [pdf]

  2. School Subjects and Academic Disciplines

    1. brief bulleted lists from King & Brownell (see optional supplement, below)

      1. King & Brownell: Bruner on Disciplines

      2. King & Brownell: A Discipline is ...

    2. Whitson, What Social Studies Teachers Need to Know, pick from these 2 file versions:

    3. Congressional Record: Senator Byrd on "TRADITIONAL AMERICAN HISTORY AS A SEPARATE SUBJECT" pick from these 2 file versions:

    4. optional supplements:

      1. from King & Brownell, The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Knowledge (1966)
         fat PDF  OR  skinny pdf

      2. (moved from Assigned to Optional Supplement) Barton & Levstik, Teacher Education and the Purposes of History, pick from these 3 file versions:

      3. Wineburg: A History of Flawed Teaching

      4. Crocheting mathematician brings principle into reach

Review of DSTP items -- Round 2

After you have completed your First Round review of student responses to the 2 DSTP released items, please rate them a second time, this time using the official scoring tools. The items, "scorecard," and scoring tools are linked here:

Please turn in your Round 2 ratings in class on March 17.

If you want the file for last week's handout (with the 2 items & all the student responses), you can access this large (about 1.25M) PDF file in the “Shared Documents Library” of our Class Web at
http://www.web-ed.udel.edu/class/educ897.05s-10/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.htm

Miniproject for Week 5: Response to Weaver's argument about curriculum
     (see green button [above])

     What is the relevance of scientific evidence for deciding what to do about the controversy over teaching evolution? Richard Weaver argues that scientific evidence supporting evolution was irrelevant in the case of Scopes v. Tennessee. Although scientific or empirical evidence can establish whether "positive" facts are true or not, such positive facts do not determine what it is that we should do. Practical reasoning or "rhetorical" arguments are necessary to establish connections between positive facts and practical conclusions about the course of conduct that ought to be pursued.
     Weaver argues that the Scopes case had unfortunate results because lawyers, journalists, and the public at large did not recognize the difference between "positive" (or factual) positions, and rhetorical or practical positions (i.e., positions on the policy or practice to be established).
     What is missing, according to Weaver, is professional and public competence in a third kind of reasoning, called "dialectics." Weaver points out that there is no logical or "dialectical" contradiction between the factual truth of evolution (no matter how well supported by scientific evidence), on the one hand, and the validity of Tennessee's policy against teaching evolution, on the other hand. Dialectics shows how positions are related to each other logically, and hence what are the logical possibilities and what are the logical impossibilities.
     Weaver's final conclusion is that "the educated people of our country would have to be so trained that they could see the dialectical possibility of the opposites of the beliefs they possess. And that is a very large order for education in any age."
     Weaver's analysis of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" is presented as just one example to explain his primary argument, which is an argument for the importance of curriculum in which people will acquire the dialectical competence to see how they could be wrong, partly by recognizing how "positive," "rhetorical," and "dialectical" positions are different from each other, but related to each other in crucial ways.
     Is Weaver right? If he is right, does that mean that there are no limits on the power of legislative authority on matters of curriculum (where "legislative authority" could be a school board, parliament, or monarch -- whatever person or body is in the position of arbitrating among "partial universes of discourse" [such as science vs. religion, or environmentalists vs. industrialists, etc.] and having to decide what is to be done)?

For this miniproject, please respond to Weaver's argument. Your response may take one of these forms (or something else):

  1. Are you convinced that Weaver is correct about the evolution controversy? If you are not convinced, explain what you find wrong with his argument.
  2. If you think he's right about the evolution controversy, do you see any principled basis for limitations on the authority of legislative power over curriculum? Explain.
  3. If you are satisfied by Weaver's treatment of both the evolution controversy, and the general authority of legislative power over curriculum matters, then (following Weaver's challenge to see "the dialectical possibility of the opposite of your beliefs") briefly describe what you would see as the strongest principled argument against Weaver's conclusions. Very briefly, is there any kind of evidence or logical reasoning you can imagine that might convince you to change your mind?

You might think of another way of engaging with the principles propounded in Weaver's text. That's fine. It's also fine if the total length of what you write for this miniproject is shorter than what I have written here. Have fun!

Please submit your essay by midnight Monday, March 14. You are not expected to have done the other readings besides Weaver before you do this miniproject.