Context
This page is Part 2 in a three-part
series about worldviews-and-religion in public education — 1) Worldviews-Balance
in Education explains why absence does not produce balance; 2) Potential
Dangers of Worldview Education (this page); 3) Origins
Education in Public Schools examines methods for teaching evolution,
design, and creation
— which
in turn is part of broader explorations in Religion
in Public Education and Worldview
Education.
Review
Does absence produce balance? As
explained in Part 1, a common educational policy of "teaching only science" (or
only history, or...) — with no mention of religion except perhaps
in a condescending claim to fully "explain" it in terms of psychology and
sociology, as a human construction — does not accomplish its stated
goal of achieving a balanced treatment of religion. On the other
hand, "Do theists
want theistic concepts to be explained by a teacher who might distort these
ideas due to a lack of knowledge and skill, or by a skeptical nontheist
who might try to persuade students against theistic beliefs?" {quoted
from Part 1, re: Worldviews-Balance in Education}
Accurate
Understanding
and Respectful Attitudes
Students in my high school
learned valuable lessons about understanding and attitudes from one of
our favorite teachers,
who sometimes held debates in his civics class. On Monday he convinced
us that "his side of the issue" was correct, but on Tuesday he made the other
side look just as good. After awhile we learned that, in order to get
an accurate understanding, we should get the best information and arguments
that all sides of an issue can claim as support. We also learned respect,
because we realized that even though we may have valid reasons for preferring
one position, people on other sides of an issue may also have good reasons,
both intellectual and ethical, for believing as they do. {
details
of "understanding and attitudes" in my high school experience}
Logical
Evaluation: Is it a worthy goal for education?
Most educators, including me,
agree that two central goals of education are
conceptual
understanding and
thinking
skills, and a very important thinking skill is
logical evaluation. In
addition to helping students understand concepts, a teacher should help students
learn
the skills and attitudes required
for logical evaluation, for deciding whether a theory should be accepted,
rejected, or viewed with an intermediate level of confidence. {
Usually this process of using logic is called
critical thinking,
but maybe we should change the name to
evaluative thinking. }
Will critical
thinking lead to postmodern relativism?
When teaching about religion in a public
school, all of us should agree that "reaching a conclusion" is not an acceptable
goal. But we should distinguish between goals for a class and for an
individual student. If a teacher claims that "since you cannot know
for certain, you should avoid a conclusion," it would encourage a relativistic
agnosticism in students. But perhaps this can be avoided if a teacher
explains that "since this is a public school I'm trying to be neutral, but
each of you as an individual, outside school, can reach your own conclusion."
As emphasized by advocates of
teaching about religion in public schools, such as Charles Haynes and Warren
Nord,
appropriate training of teachers is essential, so they can learn effective
strategies for remaining reasonably neutral, with a logically appropriate
humility, while avoiding a mushy (or pushy) postmodern relativism.
a clarification: The
intention of our civics teacher, and the conclusion of his students (including
me),
was not a postmodern relativism. And this website is not postmodern. It
is dedicated to the rationality (and compatibility) of logic and faith.
resources: What
is postmodernism? If
you're wondering, check Knowledge of
Worldviews. My
views are summarized above and in three pages: Is
there proof for the existence and actions of God? and
Basic Concepts of Reality, Truth,
and Theory and Should
Philosophy of Science be Eks-Rated?
Critical
Thinking in Worldview Education
As mentioned above, helping students
improve their thinking skills is a worthy goal. But when critical thinking
is used in worldview education, is it always beneficial?
At its best, when people and
ideas are treated with respect, and views are expressed accurately, an interactive
discussion of controversial issues usually produces high motivation, and
helps students learn about important issues while developing their skills
in critical thinking. I still remember, with gratitude, the way a
high school teacher changed my
understanding and attitudes and
the way I think.
At its worst, however, interactive discussion
can be an effective way for a teacher to persuade, to impose personal opinions
on students. In fact, open discussion, with critical thinking guided
by the teacher, is often used as an instructional strategy in the
conceptual
change method that has become influential in science education during
the past two decades.
For example, imagine my civics teacher
using his expert debating skills to specialize in "Monday arguments" without
ever presenting Tuesday's counter-arguments. But it would be even worse
(for seekers of the truth) if he constructed a weak, distorted "strawman" of
the Tuesday position, for the purpose of knocking it down and declaring a
victory of Monday over Tuesday. This would be very effective for persuasion,
even though it would be intentionally misleading (and therefore intellectually
dishonest) because the strong Tuesday — the
real one, not the fake made of straw — was never involved in the
debate.
In this situation a few
students — those who already have the knowledge, confidence, and ability
required to skillfully analyze complex
issues — would survive and might even thrive. But most students — being
young, inexperienced, impressionable, and intellectually timid — would
lack the ability to mentally defend themselves against a well-prepared adult
who, as teacher, occupies a position of authority and has earned the respect
of students.
Of course, another danger is a "direct
teaching" of worldviews — which can be implicit or explicit, subtle or obvious
— to students who are not able or willing to engage
in
critical
thinking about
what they
are learning. ( In fact, they may not even be aware of their "worldview
learning." )
Because most young students are
vulnerable, teachers are expected to seek a balance between conflicting demands: a
teacher should provide strong intellectual guidance, but should not exert "too
much influence" on students. Finding an appropriate balance is not
easy, especially in the climate of controversy that is common in worldviews
education, because no matter what a teacher does it will be impossible to
please everyone.
In education about worldviews,
as in other areas of the curriculum, effective teaching depends on the integrity
and
skill of teachers who think carefully, with wisdom and courage, about desirable
goals, who build a solid foundation by adequate preparation and planning,
and who carry out their plans with sensitivity and respect.
Appendix
Critical
Thinking = Evaluative
Thinking
The homepage for
Critical
Thinking explains why
"critical
thinking is not necessarily being critical and negative. ... Rigorous
critical thinking can produce a glowing recommendation ... so it would
be more accurate to call it evaluative
thinking.
Teaching for Conceptual Change
According
to Demastes, et al,
"Many
science educators interested in understanding the process of learning use
the model
of conceptual change. Within
this broad framework, a learner is thought to possess a network of related
conceptions, a conceptual framework, through which he or she understands
a topic. Learning is characterized as a series of cognitive restructurings
in which a learner's conceptual framework undergoes structural modifications
or revisions based upon new experiences, information, or concepts the learner
encounters. Thus, learning is seen as a change in a preexisting conceptual
framework."
As a science educator,
I think teaching for
conceptual
change (described above and in a summary of
Conceptual
Change Teaching) is generally
a
very good
idea,
and
is
not
a
sinister
plot. The
main proponents of this approach have good motivations, and have
worked hard to develop it into an effective way to teach. But any powerful
educational method, including conceptual change teaching, can be used for
either good or evil. Belief
in a God who is theistically active in nature could be considered an "alternative
conception" if
some experts in science and education don't believe it. In fact, in
the mid-1990s
this claim was made by a prominent educator invited to lecture at UW-Madison. If
some teachers agree, and they define a belief in divine action as
an "alternative
explanation" that
is
unscientific and is thus undesirable
in
science
education,
then
a statement (from the summary page) that
"the challenge
of
teaching science is to ensure that students do not leave classrooms with their
alternative
explanations
intact" is a
cause for concern.
Hidden Arguments and Open Discussions
Here are excerpts (with omissions
indicated by ...) from a section about Hidden
Arguments and Open Discussions.
...
Occasionally
an atheist/materialist worldview is explicitly stated, as
when Carl Sagan (winner of awards for science education) opened
Cosmos by
asserting that
"The Cosmos is all that is
or ever was or ever will be." More
often, materialism is implicitly communicated, even if this
is not intended, when "no theistic
action in all scientific descriptions of the universe" implies "no
theistic action in the universe." Due to these implications,
ignoring religious perspectives (as in a simplistic policy of "teaching
only science") does not produce a neutral balance.
Implicit arguments can be persuasive
because only one view is presented, with no opportunity for counter-argument. Because
the arguments are hidden, they are not critically analyzed, so fallacious
reasoning can survive and thrive.
By contrast, open discussions will
encourage understanding and critical thinking. Possible discussion
topics include... / During
discussions, important ideas from major viewpoints should be expressed
accurately (with no weak, distorted "strawmen") so the ideas
can be understood and evaluated. ... A respect for religious perspectives,
with an absence of "faith versus reason" implications, is important. Without
respect, a discussion of important ideas can be harmful. With respect
and wisdom, it can be helpful and educationally productive.