Penn State undergraduate Alexis Capel interviews Dr. David Plutzer, Professor of Political Science and Sociology, about his continuing research on the teaching of evolution and climate change in public schools across the United States.
HOST:
Alexis Capel , Penn State Undergraduate Student, Biological Anthropology
GUEST:
Dr. David Plutzer, Penn State Professor of Political Science and Sociology
Penn State undergraduate Alexis Capel interviews Dr. David Plutzer, Professor of Political Science and Sociology, about his continuing research on the teaching of evolution and climate change in public schools across the United States.
HOST:
Alexis Capel , Penn State Undergraduate Student, Biological Anthropology
GUEST:
Dr. David Plutzer, Penn State Professor of Political Science and Sociology
Mark Shriver:
From Penn State’s Center for Human Evolution and Diversity, this is Tracking Traits
[THEME MUSIC]
Nina Jablonski:
Hello and welcome to the second season of the Tracking Traits podcast. My name is Nina Jablonski and I’m the co-director of CHED, the Center for Human Evolution and Diversity at Penn State.
Mark Shriver:
And I’m Mark Shriver, the other co-director of CHED at Penn State. Welcome back, listeners.
Nina Jablonski:
Mark it’s been another incredibly busy year at CHED, and at Penn State, the time has really flown by, hasn’t it?
Mark Shriver:
I know Nina. It’s hard to believe it’s been a whole year since we launched Tracking Traits, but here we are kicking off season two.
Nina Jablonski:
Yes, here we are with this new season, and six new episodes that feature Penn State undergrads interviewing scientists here at the university who are doing exciting, novel research projects to advance our understanding of human evolution.
Mark Shriver:
Six new episodes, with six new, fascinating stories. And just like last year, the scientists being interviewed this season are approaching human evolution from completely different angles.
Nina Jablonski:
That’s right Mark, this season covers everything from physical traits like the diversity of our microbiomes and hair; to diversity of psychological traits like the personalities of twins and narcissists; to social issues like the health effects of stress and the challenges of teaching subjects like evolutionary science in U.S. public schools.
Mark Shriver:
Such a great diversity of topics!
Nina Jablonski:
Absolutely!
Mark Shriver:
So what’s the topic for our season opener, Nina?
Nina Jablonski
We’re going to open with the episode that is probably the most controversial of the bunch, Mark. It’s that last one I mentioned – about the teaching of subjects like evolutionary science, and also climate science, in U.S. public schools. Our own Eric Plutzer, Professor of Political Science and Sociology here at Penn State, was one of the first researchers to lead a study on this topic on the national level.
Mark Shriver:
Oh boy, that’s a big one. And it’s also a subject close to our hearts, as we’ve really devoted our careers to evolutionary science. It’s easy to forget sometimes that the fundamental principles that underpin our work are still not universally accepted by the public.
Nina Jablonski:
Agreed. And the same holds true for climate science as well. What’s really interesting about Eric’s work is that he manages to collect data on these very charged and often politicized topics in a very methodical and respectful manner.
Mark Shriver:
That’s really essential to do in all science, but I’d say even more so when we’re dealing with socially difficult subjects that are tied to peoples’ core beliefs. Please remind me, who conducted that interview with Eric Plutzer?
Nina Jablonski:
Our interviewer for this episode is Alexis Capel, undergraduate Anthropology student here at Penn State. And what was really interesting about their exchange is that she had a story of her own from high school about one particular teacher’s approach to teaching climate science.
Mark Shriver:
Wow, sounds like this topic really hit home for Alexis on a personal level.
Nina Jablonski:
It did. It’s just the kind of moment that makes these recorded exchanges between our students and scientists so compelling.
Mark Shriver:
Well, why don’t we give it a listen?
Nina:
That sounds like a great idea. Here’s Anthropology student Alexis Capel interviewing Professor of Political Science and Sociology Eric Plutzer about the challenges of teaching science in U.S. public schools.
(MUSICAL INTERLUDE)
Alexis Capel:
Hello, Dr. Plutzer. Thanks for joining us today. It's really nice to be able to talk to you about your research.
Eric Plutzer:
It's my pleasure.
Alexis Capel:
I guess we can just start off with you telling us a little bit about yourself, your research and how you established your career.
Eric Plutzer:
Well, I'm actually trained as a sociologist and got very interested in political sociology as a graduate student and was unable to get a job right away and did a post-doctoral fellowship at Indiana University in social psychology and psychopathology. Then eventually was invited to apply for some positions in political science. I've been a political scientist ever since. I've always been interested in the politics that is now called the culture war politics. I've been very interested in those issues and many of them play out in science education today. That's how I got interested in the politics surrounding the teaching of evolution.
Alexis Capel:
It sounds like you really paved your path for yourself there, with many disciplines that that you're interested in. So what makes you so passionate about your research? Is there a particular part of it that really gets you excited to go to work?
Eric Plutzer:
Well, I've always been interested in why citizens disagree with one another passionately over certain issues, and there's no shortage of those issues on the political agenda today. And over the years, I've looked at reproductive politics. I've looked at politics of poverty and income redistribution, but maybe 20 years ago when I had young children and my colleague, Michael Berkman, had young children, we got interested in schools as arenas for politics, and in particular, issues surrounding the history of the earth and evolution. And we were curious about things that were happening in the local school district here, and that put us on a track of examining evolution in particular.
Alexis Capel:
Those are definitely some great reasons, especially when curiosity is the driver. Can you give us a little bit of background about your studies you do, more in detail?
Eric Plutzer:
Sure. Well, we're interested in how teachers negotiate the different demands that are placed on them. And so your typical middle school or high school science teacher is in a complicated situation. They have some professional norms. Almost all of them majored in a science field in college, and they were no doubt taught that evolution is the central driving principle in modern biology and were presented with lots of evidence. And most of them feel an obligation to be true to those norms and follow the recommendations of the National Academies of Science.
Eric Plutzer:
On the other hand, they're in an environment where some of those findings are contested, and they're contested primarily on religious grounds and the parents of the children in their classrooms and the citizens that pay taxes to fund their salaries may be among those that do not accept evolution and would prefer that it not be taught forthrightly in their schools.
Eric Plutzer:
They have to navigate that. The last thing that any science teacher wants is to be called into the principal's office because a student or a parent or community member complained. And so science teachers in many communities are careful and have to teach evolution more carefully than they would other kinds of subjects like the movement of planets, for example. And so we were interested in how they react to these forces and the kinds of political pressures that are placed on them and how they decide to teach evolution in their particular circumstance.
Alexis Capel:
So, in your research, you look at the role of Creationism and how teachers discuss that in their classrooms. Would you mind briefly explaining what Creationism is and why it can be so controversial?
Eric Plutzer:
Well, Creationism is essentially the belief that the Earth and humans were created in a six-day period, whether that's a literal six-day period or something looser. B ut that they were created pretty much all at once in the not too distant past by God. And that evolution as it's taught in most American and international universities contradicts a lot of their assumptions. And they sometimes feel threatened or feel that their faith is disrespected if evolution is taught in a scientific manner and they have fought for more than a 100 years to limit the teaching of evolution in schools, in some cases to provide balance so that a biblical perspective is given, if not equal time, at least some time in the classroom. That has evolved into more elaborate arguments such as the theory of intelligent design, that evolution can't account for the complexity of life and no scientists find much evidence for that and do not give it that much credence, but their arguments have shifted over the years. And intelligent design was one way to say that what they believe in terms of their faith is really scientific. And so it takes different forms and they have advocated for that in the classroom for, as I said, pretty much a century now.
Alexis Capel:
Start a new recording. When did you start formally researching the teaching of evolution in high schools?
Eric Plutzer:
Our first survey was fielded in 2007. And that was a survey of over 900 high school biology teachers.
Alexis Capel:
Has this led you to examine other controversial areas?
Eric Plutzer:
Yes, we began to see similarities across other kinds of science that had become controversial in the classroom. In 2016, we did our first survey that focused entirely on the teaching of climate change in America's middle schools and high schools.
Alexis Capel:
I've had some teachers in the past that, or at least in high school, who didn't quite follow those types of guidelines.
Eric Plutzer:
That's really interesting, Alexis. Tell me a little more about your experience.
Alexis Capel:
Well, in high school, I had a teacher who had some vocal opinions about climate change. He didn't quite believe that it was true and he taught all of the students that it wasn't true. And a couple of my bold friends got some articles together in favor of climate change being real and sent it to him. It caused a whole discussion in class. And it was quite something to be a part of.
Eric Plutzer:
Yeah, I think that's not unusual. And I think it happens in both directions, and sometimes it spills out beyond the classroom, getting principals and school boards involved. So I think your experience, while it's not the most common, actually happens quite a bit throughout the United States.
Eric Plutzer:
One of the things that we've learned is that science teachers are not scientists. They're drawn from the general population. Almost half of teachers are actually teaching in districts very close to where they grew up. When scientists at the national academies say, "This is how we think evolution should be taught," it seems straightforward to them. And many of the teachers are generalists and they may not be completely expert in carbon dating or in morphology or understanding different subfields of evolution, genetic clocks and so on.
Eric Plutzer:
And when confronted with counter-arguments that may not be scientific, they may not have the confidence and breadth of scientific knowledge that scientists might expect. And many of them also live lives of faith and feel that it's a kind of religious test. That is, if they endorse modern science of evolutionary biology, that they're in some ways going against their faith. And so a small percentage of secondary science teachers do not accept modern evolutionary biology and many of them will express that in their classrooms to their students.
Eric Plutzer:
A much larger number are sort of conflict avoiders, that they don't feel confident in teaching evolution as the National Academies would prefer and recommend, and instead give a sort of watered down version. Or they will let their students debate the topic without intervening when students introduce incorrect reasoning or facts that turn out not to be true. Other teachers will encourage students to opt out to avoid conflict.
Eric Plutzer:
And so while there's a small number of promoters of creationism in America's classrooms, there's a much larger group that it is really not teaching evolution effectively, because they're trying to navigate these challenges in their community.
Alexis Capel:
That's exactly what happened in high school for me. I had some teachers that were very neutral and some teachers that were very vocal. What are some precautions that teachers can take or should take when discussing these topics?
Eric Plutzer:
Well, I think it depends. I think, first of all, it's really important that new teachers, teachers in training, those in our colleges of education, those who are student teachers get a hefty amount of science education. I think it's very difficult for a typical future science teacher to spend as much time in the lab as somebody who might be pre-med or going into industry because they have, in addition to being a chemistry major or a biology major, they have lots of classes on pedagogy and classroom management and methods and materials of science education. And then they have to squeeze in, often, two student teaching experiences. And so they simply don't have the opportunity to volunteer and work in a lab for two or three years in the same way that other science majors do. But the more courses that they can take at an upper level that cover evolution, the more confident they'll be when confronted with specious arguments and be able to sort of stand up to complaints and say, "I'm just teaching the science. I'm just teaching the curriculum."
Eric Plutzer:
It's also important they have support from the community, to make sure that it's not just the loudest parents and citizens that are heard, but that parents and citizens who want evolutionary biology to be taught effectively also voice their support and come to the aid of teachers who are under pressure. Those matter quite a bit.
Eric Plutzer:
Teachers also are under a lot of pressure to teach to the standards established by their state governments. And the more that those standards are in line with national recommendations, the more protection they have to say, "Well, I'm teaching to the standards. The students have to take a high-stakes test at the end of the semester and I'm preparing them for that." And so the more that states and localities follow the Next Generation Science Standards, that I think now 32 states have joined in on, the more effective their teaching as well.
[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]
Alexis Capel:
Well, obviously, for us evolution is very crucial to what we're learning, but in general, studying evolution is crucial to also students and other future scientists, to understand how we came to be as people. So, how are young children or students impacted by learning or not learning about evolution and climate change?
Eric Plutzer:
Yeah, that's a great question, Alexis, and I think the answer is complicated. There are no doubt thousands of physicians who are practicing in the United States who don't accept evolution because of their faith. And so far as I know, their patient care is maybe not impacted by that. We have to understand that it is possible for some people, even in biological fields, to sort of do their job in their constrained way and not accept evolution. Obviously, a good understanding of evolution is helpful in understanding discussions about COVID-19 variants and seasonal flu, and why we as patients need to finish up our antibiotics. And so there are practical lessons that come out of a good understanding of evolution. But more generally, I think if students go through secondary education and the teachers that they respect undermine the conclusions that emerge from the scientific process, they're going to be more skeptical of other kinds of scientific conclusions as well.
Eric Plutzer:
And so it's important I think, that students get exposed to the nature of science. Evolution is one of those areas where most of the facts in their high school textbooks have been confirmed many, many times using multiple kinds of evidence by independent teams and that acceptance of evolution by scientists come from this accumulation of evidence, rather than proof in a kind of simple-minded way. And I think evolution is a good topic to convey how science actually works in all of its complexity. And I think having that understanding empowers young people to become informed citizens on a whole variety of policies that have scientific or technical underpinnings
Eric Plutzer:
And so rather than think that, well, you need evolution to follow your doctor's instructions about antibiotics. Sure, that would help. But I think the bigger thing is that when teachers undermine scientific expertise, they convey to students that a lot of science is just a matter of opinion and faith rather than a very rigorous process with many checks and lots of competition among scientists to find holes and flaws in other people's work. And that if it gets into a textbook, it's a good chance it's been verified hundreds or thousands of times.
Alexis Capel:
People can be quite passionate about their beliefs, and I'm sure it can be difficult within this field. So is it difficult keeping your own beliefs separate from your research?
Eric Plutzer:
Boy, that's a great question. It's virtually impossible to do social science work without having some opinions about what you study. It’s possible to have no opinions at all about the nature of rocks, but people go into the social sciences because they believe and expect that good scientific understanding can form public policy and make the world a better place. And so certainly I go in with my own opinions about the challenges of teaching evolution and the directions I think it should go.
Eric Plutzer:
That being said, it's important that our work be as objective and scientific as possible. And so we do a number of things to try to ensure that. One of them is that we make all of our data publicly available. As soon as we publish our first papers, we prepare our data and make it available for anyone who requests it. And within a year, we typically place it in a public archive where anyone can download it. If they disagree with our conclusions, they can work with our data and reanalyze it. That's how science works. So we try to be 100% transparent in terms of our data and our evidence, our instruments, and the procedures that we use to collect data.
Eric Plutzer:
The second thing is none of my funders can never prevent me from sharing it with an opponent. And so if somebody from the Creation Museum wanted to access our data, none of my funders are in a position to say, "Well, no, we funded you because we wanted to advance these goals." Whether that funder is the National Science Foundation or a philanthropic nonprofit, we make sure that the data is owned here at Penn State and we pledge to make that transparent
Eric Plutzer:
We also try to avoid things like leading questions on our surveys. Quite often, the teachers who fill out our surveys will write us back and say, "I really couldn't tell if you were on the pro-evolution or Creationism side, based on the survey." And some teachers have written back and said, "I think you're giving too much credence to Creationism based on your questions.” And that tells us that we're doing a good job. That tells us we're allowing those who have different opinions to give those opinions voice, which is what surveys do. They allow those who are sampled to speak on behalf of others who share their opinions. And that voice is preserved in our data. And I think that's why we get substantial cooperation rates. That's why when our work is reported in the press, it includes the evangelical press as well as the scientific press. We try to protect our reputation for doing even-handed and transparent work, not discounting the fact that it's a controversial area and our findings can be upsetting to some of the people that read them.
Alexis Capel:
Having a bunch of different perspectives I'm sure, definitely helps broaden your views and what you research. What, would you say, major impacts your work has on society and your overall field?
Eric Plutzer:
I think it's had several impacts. I think one is, by simply describing how often creationism is advocated across the country, it's gotten the attention of scientists who now think they need to pay more attention to science education in the middle and high school grades.
Eric Plutzer:
I think it has given support for those who would advocate the adoption of Next Generation Science Standards. We have pretty good evidence that that is improving the quality of science education with respect to evolution in states that did not adopt the Next Generation Science Standards, we see more teachers advocating for Creationism, more teachers taking a "both sides get classroom time" approach, or have unstructured debates that allow students to come to their own conclusions. And so we think that this provides really strong evidence that rigorous science standards do make a difference in the education that our students have.
Alexis Capel:
You work with many teachers from across the United States, from different backgrounds. How is your research important in the framework of diversity? Are there any cultural impacts?
Eric Plutzer:
Probably not that many. Whenever we do a survey, we try to have teachers from every state and indeed our newest protocol divides the country into 151 areas. So every state is an urban area, a rural area, and a suburban area. We apply sampling theory to each of them. So we basically draw 151 random samples and put them together to make sure that we represent the breadth of the country.
Eric Plutzer:
When we talk about diversity, there's multiple elements. First there are majority-minority schools, schools where a majority of the students are non-White. It's difficult to separate out the instruction in those schools from some of the other challenges that those schools have. Often high turnover, low teacher salaries. And they face a lot of problems irrespective of science education, but we don't find that much difference in what the teachers are trying to do in those classrooms. And we don't find that much difference in terms of the racial or ethnic or gender backgrounds of the teachers.
Eric Plutzer:
What seems to drive people's approach to teaching evolution are the values that they had before they became educators and the amount of science training that they had when they were in college or after college. It's difficult because everything is intertwined, but we don't see dramatic differences across different types of schools who serve different types of students. And we don't see dramatic differences across teachers from different backgrounds.
Alexis Capel:
We previously discussed keeping personal beliefs close to the chest when dealing with this type of research and how people can be pretty vocal about their opinions. Do you and your colleagues receive any sort of backlash when conducting this type of research, and how do you handle it?
Eric Plutzer:
Yes. Usually after a study is released, I set up a folder in my email, which I call Fan Mail, and most of it is not positive. Some folks want to draw you into a debate on something very specific that they're passionate about and I try not to get drawn into something that's going to go back and forth, back and forth over time. Some people simply want to express themselves and aren't really asking a genuine question. I've had some fan mail from people involved in funding our university, people from state government, and I've replied as politely as I could because I don't want to jeopardize Penn State's budget, as it's reviewed at the state legislature. Most of it is fairly polite, and some people just want to get into a long discussion. And I try not to do that, but I haven't received anything that's hateful or aggressive, the way that I know some colleagues who study other controversial subjects have.
Alexis Capel:
That's quite lucky. I know if I were receiving fan mail, and I love that you call it fan mail, I wouldn't be able to maybe handle some of it. Are there any other frustrations or limitations that you face with this kind of research that you do?
Eric Plutzer:
One of the parts that's both interesting and challenging is that I'm studying teacher education and teacher performance, and I'm not an education scholar. And my approaches are different than the approaches that might be taken by faculty in our college of education or other colleges of education. Many of their studies are small, they're interpretive. Many of them are based on pre-service teachers who haven't gotten their first job yet. Many are based on convenience samples, so people in a particular area. We are trying to introduce the idea that to really get a handle on this, you need to use scientific sampling and very high quality surveys. They can be very expensive to do.
Eric Plutzer:
To make sure that our samples are representative, we have a long, elaborate process where we typically start with several thousand teacher names. All of them get a letter by post saying that a survey's coming. And then we typically contact them again with a pencil-and-paper survey and remind them and cajole them, and after that has sort of petered out, we'll provide an option to do it on the web to pick up those who find that more convenient. And in doing so, we're the first to really get samples where teachers from all 50 states, all kinds of locales have a chance to be represented. And we just get a much richer picture. And I wish that that approach would be more common in education field, on this and other topics.
Eric Plutzer:
I would've thought after all this time that we wouldn't be the only one still doing it. And so that's a frustration that hasn't extended out, that it's basically just our team doing this kind of work.
Alexis Capel:
Can you describe what makes your work so unique?
Eric Plutzer:
Yeah I think what's unique is that it's we take the broad view and that allows us, by having samples of 900 teachers or 1,500 teachers across all 50 states, we can ask and answer questions that smaller studies can't address. So we can compare, for example, teachers in states that adopted the Next Generation Science Standards and teachers in states that have not. We can compare teachers who have a lot of seniority with newer generations of teachers. We can compare teachers who teach in majority-minority schools, and those who teach in primarily White schools; we can look at urban and rural differences. And so these are things that are only possible when you have a national scope and that's what's unique about our approach.
Alexis Capel:
What piece of advice would you give to younger and future scientists wanting to learn more about your field?
Eric Plutzer:
So I'm a social scientist who's interested in science, and I think it's a very exciting area. It helps to be broadly read. It helps to interact frequently with colleagues from other fields. And I had the good fortune to work closely with Nina and Mark and bench scientists and genealogists in trying to develop the Penn State summer camp, Finding Your Roots. I've had the opportunity to work with education scholars and statisticians. So I think for young people who want to investigate the social aspects of science, it helps to have a network of active bench scientists and theoretical scientists and folks from other disciplines. I think that's super important.
Eric Plutzer:
And I also think it's important to have faith. Maybe "faith" should be in quotes. That if you do good objective science and do it in a way that's transparent with full disclosure, in the end, that makes for a better society. And if you come up with facts that were surprising, that disappoint you, that say that, "Well, a policy that I want, used to advocate, doesn't seem to work, or the bad guys are not so bad, or maybe the good guys are not so good," that you've got to forthrightly report that too, and not hide it. And that it's important for the integrity of science, for your reputation, for the reputation of your colleagues, to always have transparency and the highest research ethics involved. And I think that's especially true when you're studying something that is fraught, that people have strong feelings about and that is politicized.
Alexis Capel:
I'm eager to know what's next for you?
Eric Plutzer:
On this project, I'm working with a couple of colleagues at the National Center for Science Education; Anne Reid and Glen Branch on a couple of papers; one of them specifically on the types of training that student teachers ought to have, that will prepare them to teach controversial science effectively. Not just evolution, but also climate change. I think the same lessons would apply to sexuality education and other topics. Vaccine hesitancy. We're excited about that paper and we're working on that. We still have a lot of data to analyze from our last survey, but I think it's definitely possible that we will be doing follow-up surveys in a few years, so we're excited about that.
Alexis Capel:
Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to speak with us today, Dr. Plutzer.
Eric Plutzer:
It was a pleasure, Alexis.
Alexis Capel:
Thank you so much.
[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]
Mark Shriver:
Tracking Traits is a production of Penn State’s Center for Human Evolution and Diversity. Our producer, audio engineer and musical theme composer is Cole Hons, and our logo was designed by Michael Tribone of mtribone design.
If you enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe through your favorite app, and help us reach more people by sharing it with others and rating us on Apple podcasts.
You can also follow us on social media and learn more about CHED and all of our interviewers and guests at our website, CHED – that’s C H E D dot L A dot P S U dot E D U.