The growing visibility of creationism in Northern Ireland: are new science teachers equipped to deal with the issues?

The growing visibility of various forms of creationism in Northern Ireland raises issues for science education. Attempts have been made at political levels to have such “alternatives” to evolution taught in the science classroom, and the issue has received coverage in local press and media. A sample of 112 pre-service science teachers answered a survey on attitudes toward evolution. Preliminary analysis revealed many of these new teachers held views contrary to scientific consensus—over one fifth doubt the evidence for human evolution, and over one quarter dispute the common ancestry of life. Over two thirds indicated a preference for teaching a “range of theories” regarding these issues in science. In addition, 49 pre-service biology teachers viewed a DVD resource promoting “intelligent design” and completed an evaluation of it. The biology teachers also took part in either focus groups or additional questionnaires. A majority took the resource at face value and made positive comments regarding its utility. Many articulated views contrary to the stated positions of science academies, professional associations, and the UK government teaching directives regarding creationism. Most indicated a perception that intelligent design is legitimate science and that there is a scientific “controversy” regarding the legitimacy of evolution. Concern is raised over the ability of these new teachers to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific theories. The suggestion is made that the issue should be addressed directly with pre-service science teachers to make clear the status of such “alternatives.” The paper raises implications for science education and questions for further research.

Can they go it alone? Addressing criticisms of coteaching.

This paper responds to Wassell and LaVan’s paper on the transition from a preservice coteaching experience to independent teaching as a beginning inservice teacher. Wassell and LaVan describe coteaching as an alternative to traditional teaching. In our response, we argue that coteaching can also be applied alongside independent teaching in preservice courses, as opposed to an alternative to independent teaching, which has been shown to alleviate some of the transition issues described by Wassell and LaVan. We then present a critical discussion of different models and vocabularies of coteaching which apply in different sociocultural settings to expand the concept of coteaching. We attempt to extend Wassell and LaVan’s use of Guba and Lincoln’s (Fourth generation evaluation, 1989) authenticity criteria from the research methodology towards considering the criteria also as a framework for coteaching as practice for preservice and cooperating teachers. Finally, we reflect on the role of critical ethnography in Wassell and LaVan’s study in terms of the researchers’ intervention and whether improvements in the transition can be effectively introduced which do not require such intervention. We conclude our discussion with some suggestions to take forward this important work.