Thoughts on Life Science Education in the Home

Throughout the rest of this year, I will be continuing a series of posts on home education in various subjects required by or related to those required by the state we currently reside in. This is partly to develop my own homeschooling philosophy and specific ideas via writing, and partly sharing some toddler-appropriate ideas and visions that may be of help to you. This post is on life science education, focusing on how to sequence said education in the K-12 age range. My previous post is on health education.

The last section of this post does dive somewhat into controversies between extremes in life science education, particularly biology and origins science. My position is that of a conservative moderate Christian, and within the word limits of a blog post (what most people are willing to read!) I have tried to explain the relevant background and rationale. However, the section only scratches the surface.

What Are the Life Sciences?

Back in the day, I was (no surprise to Renaissance Biologist readers) a biology major with a chemistry minor. Suffice it to say, I've had a lifelong fascination with the life sciences in general. Still, when I looked on SciencePod for a full list of just what those sciences are, I saw some surprises. These sciences can fall into a couple of categories.

The "visible" life sciences are usually introduced first during a child's educational process, since they're easier for little hands and brains to interact with. These are zoology (study of animals), botany (study of plants), anatomy (study of palpable structures in a body), marine biology (study of water-dwelling creatures), and possibly mycology (study of fungi--though some are too small for microscope-free inspection).

Additional "visible" sciences that aren't necessarily accessible to everyone can be introduced when resources and (planned) opportunities arise. These include paleontology (study of extinct or fossilized animals), agriculture (study of how food crops are raised), ecology (study of ecosystems in which organisms interact within a defined geographic area), and conservation biology (study of how to preserve the existence of various species within a system).

The rest of the life sciences are usually introduced later on in education, perhaps with snippets in middle school but deeper dives beyond that. These include genetics (study of physical means of inheritance of traits over generations), microbiology (study of organisms invisible to the naked eye), and virology and bacteriology (study of viruses and bacteria, respectively).

Sciences I have encountered only in college or graduate school include more chemistry-based (molecular biology, biochemistry, and food science). Additionally, majors and concentrations include parasitology, biotechnology, neuroscience, biological anthropology, biomedical science, and environmental health.

How Are Life Sciences Taught in Schools?

The purpose of this section is to survey the intersection between what standards are recommended for content and competencies, and age group-appropriate strategies that are used in large groups of children in public or private school settings.

In preschool (source: Empowered Parents), the focus of content is on big concepts--like organization, cause and effect, and variation--manifested in things that are easily visible and sensible to the typical 3-5 year old. General teaching strategies include play and narration. Both of these strategies are meant to help children notice what's going on in front of them as well as what's happening "behind the scenes."

In elementary school (sources: EdWeek and iAchieveLearning), content stays much the same with possible introduction of specific sciences like biology. Strategies shift to reflect the cognitive and psychological development of typical 6-11 year olds. These include determination of specific subtopics based on student questions, guiding students to talk and take more responsibility for lessons, and introducing videos to accommodate short attention spans.

In middle school (source: Science by Sinai), further strategy shifts occur due to the tremendous social development of 12-14 year olds. Homework becomes common in this grade range, but best practices steer teachers away from assigning busywork (partly because it creates needless grading burden for teachers!) and toward using varied assessments (consistent with Universal Design for Learning [UDL]). Predictability in daily routine, templates, and project structure is a must. Other guiding principles include getting students out of their seats as much as possible, and supporting obvious fairness by nurturing healthy relationships with each student.

In high school (sources: NSTA and The Atlantic), competencies at the state and national level come much more into play--more details on that in the next section. Content opens up to much more global views of various life sciences, while still allowing students to "address global problems at the local level." Focus shifts more toward the practical, centered around core concepts such as the relationship of structure and function of an organism or how traits are inherited and vary. Teachers guide students to develop search skills and soft skills, such as teamwork, presentation, location of quality evidence, time and frustration management, and writing in order to learn and think. The Atlantic article notes that teachers are much more free to innovate for better teaching strategies if class periods are longer and if the schools they work at aren't hyper-focused on standardized test preparation.

Finally, in college and graduate school (source: BestColleges), exploration into life sciences becomes much more specialized. Of the typical 120 (or more) credits earned as part of a bachelor's degree, a major or minor in a life science tends to be on the order of 20-30 credits of content. In a master's or doctoral degree, the total credits earned are less, but coursework proportion in the chosen science is approximately the same. While undergraduate work may have some semi-independent experimentation by the students, that is a usual expectation of graduate work, along with more independent research and writing.

What are the Homeschool-Relevant Recommendations?

Because each state either uses verbatim or adapted standards from the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA), I'd like to survey those here. Overall, the NSTA standards "advocate less memorizing and more sense-making, draw connections to the Common Core, base practice in research, and apply knowledge in context." For better or worse, Common Core is still a decision-making factor for many states' boards of education. A common derivative of the NSTA standards is the NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards).

What are some sample standards for various educational levels prior to college, when children get to select whether they want to major in a science and, if so, which one?

• Elementary school:
• My chosen domain: Structure, Function, and Information Processing.
• Sample grade 1 target behavior: "Use materials to design a solution to a human problem by mimicking how plants and/or animals use their external parts to help them survive, grow, and meet their needs."
• Middle school:
• My chosen domain: Natural Selection and Adaptations.
• Sample target behavior: "Construct an explanation based on evidence that describes how genetic variations of traits in a population increase some individuals' probability of surviving and reproducing in a specific environment."
• High school:
• Sample domain: Matter and Energy in Organisms and Ecosystems.
• Sample target behavior: "Use a model to illustrate how photosynthesis transforms light energy into stored chemical energy."

What is your perspective on these standards for the typical child in each age range?

How to Homeschool as a Christian?

If you're a secular homeschooler, I would recommend many fine informational websites such as SEA. If you're more in a fundamentalist denomination of Christianity, chances are you will take issue with a number of ideas I will present in this section. I write, as stated in the intro, from a conservative moderate position, partly reacting against my upbringing in a more fundamentalist family and local homeschool community.

General Ideas

Based on my experience and reading, I am convinced that a hyperconservative or fundamentalist mindset will harm one's Christian faith by tying it artificially to unrelated scientific/philosophical concepts. What, then, is one to do? Here are four ideas to start:

• Include non-hyperconservatives in the conversation
• Read widely in philosophy (e.g., Plantinga) to discern whether it's a genuine core theological issue or a worldview issue
• Recognize the value of exposing yourself and your children to a wide variety of good arguments from different positions early on--resilient vs brittle faith as the result
• Encourage questions and be okay with answering "I don't know"

Hot-Button Topics

Some controversial (at least in some circles) topics in life science education include global warming/climate change, sex-gender conversations, and macroevolution, AKA the Theory of Evolution. Since I've been reading quite a bit on the last topic (~ the last year), I'll focus on that. Material is adapted from parts of chapters 28 and 33 of Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins.

Sections 28.2 describe the continuum of approaches that Christians or non-Christians can take when thinking about origins of the universe, Earth, and life. The first four are compatible with a theistic worldview which may or may not be specifically Christian. The last four are compatible with a worldview that allows for evolution.

1. Young-Earth creation (YEC). This is based on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1 that presupposes full scientific concordism of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, it leaves no room for all the evidence available.
2. Old-Earth creation (OEC). This is based on a slightly different interpretation of Genesis 1 that also presupposes scientific concordism. Some proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) fall into this position.
3. Directed evolution (DE). This is a non-concordist approach stating that God regularly interacts (directly and indirectly) with the material creation to drive evolution, both micro and macro.
4. Planned evolution (PE). This is another non-concordist approach stating that God regularly interacts with creation, but only in a mediated way (i.e., through natural means and mechanisms). Other terms for this include evolutionary creation or teleological evolution, and in some sources it has been called theistic evolution (though I see a distinction between TE and PE).
5. Nonteleological evolution (NTE). This approach is non-concordist and, essentially, Deist. It is compatible with evolution but not evolutionism nor with Christianity.
6. Naturalistic evolution. This approach is almost identical to NTE, but adds the presupposition that no god exists. Obviously, it is incompatible with Christianity.

Section 33.3 addresses how Christians can teach about origins. Again, options fall into a continuum, from more to fewer additional theological/philosophical presuppositions needed.

1. Forbid the teaching of evolution altogether.
2. Provide a balanced treatment of evolution and creation(ism).
3. Treat evolution as "just a theory." This approach I vehemently object to because it conflates a popular understanding of "theory" (unproven guess) with the scientific definition of "theory" (well-substantiated, but still-modifiable, best explanation for a set of data. Unfortunately, the textbooks used in my high-school education took this approach or #4.
4. Avoid teaching evolution at all.
5. Teach Intelligent Design (ID) as a scientific alternative. This has some merit, though see quote below.
6. Teach the controversy. This is fairly popular as well, but creates a false dichotomy--from the creation-evolution continuum I presented above, you can see that there are at least 4 more than just the 2 options commonly presented.
7. Teach evolution as science. This option is anathema for those Christians who have been led to believe that a particular mode of creation (i.e., YEC or OEC) is a core doctrine of Christianity. However, none of the 3 (or 4) ecumenical creeds specify how God created the material world that exists.

Whichever approach you choose for your homeschool, I would ask you to consider the authors' quote on page 626:

"All the approaches surveyed, except for the last, have in common that they focus on alternatives to evolution rather than understanding the theory, the actual science behind it, and the open questions biologists are pursuing. This likely is because these approaches to teaching evolution are motivated by religious and philosophical concerns about the theory rather than scientific issues. Our approach in this book also is religiously motivated, but the difference is starting with a comprehensive doctrine of creation rather than a narrow one."

Once you've decided on an approach, how can you as a Christian have fruitful conversations about the science involved? Section 33.4 outlines two approaches.

With Christians, start with good theology, bringing in scientific theories and evidence later on within the context of that good theology. This lessens the fear that many Christians (with incomplete understandings of science and/or theology) have about being led away from their faith by exploring origins science. Most origins debates center around how Genesis 1-11 "should" be interpreted--there are lots of bad options out there! It is not necessary to choose between evolution/Big Bang and creation.

With non-Christians, start by highlighting Christians who have engaged seriously with science (and that not everybody comes from a position of scientific concordism), the philosophical compatibility between theological and scientific concepts of causality. 

I'll wrap up with this quote from page 629: 

"The credibility of Christianity among non-Christians in the sciences has been particularly damaged by the perception that religion and science are in conflict. Both Christians and non-Christians have contributed to this misperception. . . . Scientists find themselves puzzled and frustrated by the low scientific literacy of the general public, and often these differences seem to be based on religious ideologies."

What are your thoughts on this topic? Feel free to share in the comments!