Understanding, not Belief, in the NGSS Evolution Standards for High School

Image from here

Finally got some time, thanks to Snowmageddon '14 here in Birmingham, to dedicate some time to examining how the Next Generation Science Standards approach the teaching of evolution. I had looked briefly several times before, but I needed some think time before putting an analysis for your review and reaction. (I definitely got that think time when my whole city shut down for 2 days.) I look forward to your feedback, especially if you see the NGSS differently than I do.

Bottom line: The NGSS do not require belief in evolution. And that's really good news for teaching evolution in the South and other areas of the country where students resist learning about evolution. It's also really good news for public school parents, science teachers, and anyone developing curriculum documents. The NGSS keep public school classrooms safe for students who see a conflict between evolution and their faith.

Let's look first at the high school evolution standards from the NGSS. I'll analyze them standard-by-standard below, but I suggest that you first take a couple of minutes to review the standards as they are presented together. As you probably know, the NGSS are purposely written to fit many, many features together in each standard set.  At the bare minimum, they intertwine content and process so that science teaching in America can no longer divorce the two. If you haven't seen it already, also make sure to see how the clarification statements and assessment boundaries help science teachers see the level of rigor NGSS is targeting for teaching evolution.

Now, looking standard-by-standard for belief versus understanding:

HS-LS4-1 Communicate scientific information that common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on a conceptual understanding of the role each line of evidence has relating to common ancestry and biological evolution. Examples of evidence could include similarities in DNA sequences, anatomical structures, and order of appearance of structures in embryological development.]

Clearly, this standard makes no requirement students believe in evolution. As I have advocated for years, this standard grounds students' work strongly in evidence by having them look at multiple lines. Then, they are to be able from that to "communicate scientific information" about evolution, and I hear in that portion of the standard a clear focus on students' understanding and communicating key science ideas without requiring any kind of belief from them.

HS-LS4-2 Construct an explanation based on evidence that the process of evolution primarily results from four factors: (1) the potential for a species to increase in number, (2) the heritable genetic variation of individuals in a species due to mutation and sexual reproduction, (3) competition for limited resources, and (4) the proliferation of those organisms that are better able to survive and reproduce in the environment. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on using evidence to explain the influence each of the four factors has on number of organisms, behaviors, morphology, or physiology in terms of ability to compete for limited resources and subsequent survival of individuals and adaptation of species. Examples of evidence could include mathematical models such as simple distribution graphs and proportional reasoning.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not include other mechanisms of evolution, such as genetic drift, gene flow through migration, and co-evolution.]

I've summarized inquiry for many groups of science teachers as a cycle of evidence and explanation. This standard solidly directs students toward understanding evolutionary processes in an inquiry approach. They build explanations out of evidence, and teachers can guide these explanations away from belief controversies by keeping them focused on scientific explanations and how those are limited to natural processes. The standard clearly supports this with its four factors, all of which are natural processes.

HS-LS4-3 Apply concepts of statistics and probability to support explanations that organisms with an advantageous heritable trait tend to increase in proportion to organisms lacking this trait. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on analyzing shifts in numerical distribution of traits and using these shifts as evidence to support explanations.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment is limited to basic statistical and graphical analysis. Assessment does not include allele frequency calculations.]

A focus on natural selection, as in this standard, typically doesn't cause resistant students nearly the problems they face when they are asked to look at evolution across millions of years. So belief shouldn't be an issue with this standard.

HS-LS4-4 Construct an explanation based on evidence for how natural selection leads to adaptation of populations. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on using data to provide evidence for how specific biotic and abiotic differences in ecosystems (such as ranges of seasonal temperature, long-term climate change, acidity, light, geographic barriers, or evolution of other organisms) contribute to a change in gene frequency over time, leading to adaptation of populations.]

Same as the Standard 3 above--natural selection typically doesn't raise belief issues.

HS-LS4-5 Evaluate the evidence supporting claims that changes in environmental conditions may result in: (1) increases in the number of individuals of some species, (2) the emergence of new species over time, and (3) the extinction of other species. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on determining cause and effect relationships for how changes to the environment such as deforestation, fishing, application of fertilizers, drought, flood, and the rate of change of the environment affect distribution or disappearance of traits in species.]

With a focus on "emergence of new species," this standard will probably be the most difficult of the six for resistant students. Typically, they resist evolution because they simply do not believe new species can emerge on their own without supernatural influence. (I actually agree with them, and many practicing scientists agree as well.) But, clearly, this standard does not focus on changing students' beliefs. They are not to "accept the evidence supporting claims..." Instead, they are to "evaluate the evidence." Interestingly, I actually think this standard left a door wide open for a Teach the Controversy approach, which I am quite sure the NGSS authors did not attend.

Create or revise a simulation to test a solution to mitigate adverse impacts of human activity on biodiversity.* [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on designing solutions for a proposed problem related to threatened or endangered species, or to genetic variation of organisms for multiple species.]

Again, clearly a focus on natural selection, since it's limited within the short time frame of human activity, and not one raising the specter of belief change.

Coming soon

... the behind the scenes on Coevolution on Prezi.

6000 Skulls

I just spent the day trying to really get my head around human evolution at the Hall of Human Origins in the National Museum of Natural History. I think I'm getting it. Australopithecus died out. Homo heidelbergensis is probably the common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals. Homo erectus lived a long time and was pretty dang tall.

The biggest thing I'm pondering as I walk away is how all that we know about early humans is based on 6,000 skulls. That seems like a low number. On the one hand, the number doesn't bother me. 6,000 is a pretty hefty count for any collection of specimens. Even just 1 piece of evidence is something that science must deal with, as long as it is authentic. And 6,000 is a lot more than 60 or even 600.

On the other hand, that seems like such a small number to answer the question, "Where did we come from?" In my day-to-day world, people don't believe in human evolution. I don't see them being convinced by this amount of evidence. Sure, I could try to argue with the reliability of the skulls we do have or the promise of future finds or the difficulty of fossilization. Those science-y arguments don't work well for the non-science-y people I'm thinking of. Human evolution asks them to overturn much of their worldview, and I don't think 6,000 data points are enough for them to do that.

(And I just realized that the number of currently known skulls is equal to what most of my people believe to be the age of the Earth. How crazy is that?)

Teaching Evolution Resources

A big thanks to all of you who attended my sessions at NSTA in New Orleans. I posted resources from both sessions on the Facebook page for The Missing Link (since I was having trouble with uploading to the NSTA site). If you have any questions, feel free to write them on the wall there or as a comment here. 

See You in New Orleans?

It's almost time for NSTA's Regional Convention in the Big Easy, and I'm getting excited. Please let me know if you're coming so we can connect up. I'll be speaking twice on teaching evolution, and the image here gives the times and locations.

• My Thursday session is workshop-styled, and we'll be focusing on specifics in the classroom. You'll walk away with a lesson plan for teaching whale evolution and an overview of the evolution unit I created in The Missing Link. If you've been to one of my sessions before on teaching evolution to resistant students, this is a good follow up.
• My Friday session is a big picture look at the issues involved in teaching. Do you have students afraid of evolution, maybe even hostile to it? I'll give you some good traction on the issue and show how you can be faithful to the science without attacking any faith-full students in your class. 

Both sessions feature inquiry as the heart of science teaching. 

5 Kinds of Scientists: The Theists

The most provocative kind of scientist mentioned by the National Academy in Science, Evolution and Creationism are theists. As I've presented to audiences around the country on how to teach evolution inclusively, seeing theists as a credible group of scientists has been a game-changer for many people. It was for me. As a theist myself, I always had a tendency to duck my head every time supernatural beliefs and science came up. I was always on the defensive, feeling like I had to explain how I was still rational and believing. The National Academy changed that for me and many in my audiences, however, when they stated unequivocally that theists can be good scientists: "Others are theists, who believe that God actively intervenes in the world" (p. 15).

Image from http://tinyurl.com/3lhgxxo 

Francis Collins stands as a modern example of a theist who is a great scientist. Great is a strong word, but how else would you describe the scientist who led the Human Genome Project and now heads the National Institute of Medicine? He's a great scientist, and he's quite clear about his belief in the supernatural. In his book, The Language of God, Collins traces his move from atheism to Christian belief. He founded the BioLogos Foundation, an effort at integrating science and faith. He has recently co-authored The Language of Science and Faith. 


(Collins's work reads to me like theistic evolution, but please don't be confused. Theistic sciences are not necessarily theistic evolutionists. I am a theist, but I have serious doubts about the appropriateness of trying to integrate science and faith into one nice, neat picture of agreement, especially since most theistic evolutionists work from a Christian perspective. They then are dangerously close to imposing any integration they achieve on scientists who are not Christian, since what theistic evolutionists seek is a search for ultimate truth.)


Theists have always been in the mix among scientists. Before the 19th century, theists were prominent among scientists, as they were prominent in all fields in Europe. As an example, Isaac Newton consistently wrote on religious issues as well as scientific ones. In the transitions of the 19th century, fewer mainstream scientists ascribed clearly to a theistic position, but many clearly did. Louis Aggisz is one of my favorites. As I studied the history of science in American, Aggisz as a great scientist and a devout Chritian became a role model for me. 


The New Atheists get it wrong when they insinuate that theism clouds scientists' judgment and bars them from practicing science well.  The National Academy got it right by including theists among scientists, and the history of science clearly shows the contribution that theistic scientists have made. The challenge for theistic scientists is maintaining their commitment to methodological naturalism in their scientific publications. They can't bring their beliefs about the supernatural into their scientific explanations, or they cross the line into the error of Creationists. Talk about supernatural actions and the hidden hand of Providence in the natural order are great conversations to have over beers after work or while tromping around collecting data in the field, but those speculations can't find their way into the write up of the data and still be scientific. 

5 Kinds of Scientists

Something has been rolling around in my head for a while. I'm beginning to see that there are 5 kinds of scientists when it comes to how they view evolution. The good scientists at the National Academy got me thinking about the first three kinds, but recently, I've realized that there are two more.

First, the three kinds identified by the National Academy: On page 15 of Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the authors line out how scientists can be scientific materialists, deists, or theists. This statement has been a game changer for me and for many of the teachers I have spoken to. In it, the National Academy has clearly kept the door to practicing science open to religious people like me. They refused to exclude us, and I'm grateful for their courage and clarity. Their statement has been a key platform in my talks on teaching evolution. If religious scientists aren't excluded from practicing science, then religious students shouldn't be excluded from learning about evolution. We must stop telling students, "Check your faith at the door. This is a science class."

What I'm seeing now, though, is that there are actually two other kinds at the fringes of the National Academies three. These other two kinds break long-standing scientific traditions about methodological naturalism, which is probably why the National Academy didn't consider them. One fringe group stands at the edges of theistic scientists; the other lurks at the edge of scientific materialists.

The first fringe category is pretty clear, and it's the Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. They argue that science should consider supernatural as well as natural causes. As I heard Michael Behe explain last night, scientists should follow the evidence wherever it leads. If it leads to an intelligent designer, as Behe believes, then that's good scientific thinking. He just crossed the line of methodological naturalism, however, and that opens the door to the chaos of scientists having to figure out which supernatural explanations from all the religions in the world get considered.

The second fringe category is more subtle, and as a religious person, it's the one that concerns me more. It's closely aligned with the New Atheists, and it basically says that religious people themselves, not religious explanations, should be excluded from practicing science. Here, think about Dawkin's God Delusion and how delusional people don't make good scientists. The problem with these fringe scientists is that they are breaking long standing scientific traditions about philosophical naturalism. Science has never excluded people who believe in the supernatural, but in its modern formulation it has always said that scientists must stick to natural explanations in their work and publications. These fringe scientists make scientific materialism not just one of three possible views, as the National Academy has said. Instead, they make it a requirement for all scientists, excluding me and every other religious person from doing science. They have just opened the door to the chaos of elite science where only a few enlightened individuals can understand science, and the implications of that stance are hugely sinister.

Leaving Religious People Out of Science

Thus far, Elaine Howard Ecklund's Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think is a really good read. I appreciate most of all how she is using research to lay out the range of scientists' views about religion. She's clearing up the myths and assumptions that often turn debate into shouting.

The first few chapters have me thinking about social reproduction and how the culture of university science departments keep religious people out of science. She shows how many religious scientists feel that their faith beliefs would not be accepted by their colleagues, and they therefore keep their religion as a private matter. So, to the public or to students in classes taught by that group of scientists, science has an unreligious or even anti-religious face.

Dr. Ecklund's research shows that this is not some sinister plot of Some Evil Group of Scientists who are out to destroy religion in America. Instead, her research is making me think of how social cultures reproduce themselves. Until Title IX mandated change, American girls so often heard the message, "Sports are for boys" mainly because boys were the only ones in sports. The male-dominated American sports culture reproduced itself until the sports culture was forced to change and now we see how great athletes girls can be. In the same way, I'm wondering if religious people don't feel welcomed in science simply because they aren't already welcome in science. Isn't it that the non-religious culture of American science is simply reproducing itself and blocking many religious people from going into science because they don't feel that they're welcomed?

Inquiry is the missing link

(A little caffeine can be too much!)

When I presenting on teaching evolution in Nashville, I was on a huge caffeine buzz. (When the sign on the gas station coffee says, "extra caffeine," they mean it!) I realize now that I might have left out my most important point in my presentation: Inquiry is the missing link in evolution education. Inquiry is what best allows students who resist learning about evolution to engage in looking at the evidence and how scientists explain the evidence because inquiry doesn't rely on authoritative pressure.

In typical evolution education, conflict can easily boil down to, "I'm the teacher. That settles it." Or to, "That's what scientists say. Case closed." That may not be what the teacher is saying, but it's too often what resistant students are hearing. They hear an appeal to authority, and they are ready to counter with the authorities they trust more, whether those be God, the Bible, or what their preacher or parents say. Inquiry turns the discussion away from conflicting authorities to the evidence at hand. Inquiry frees the teacher to say to resistant students, "What do you think?" about the evidence at hand or how to explain it sticking to the rules of science.

What I Wish I Said I: I'm Still Learning about Evolution

Call it author's remorse, but now I'm thinking of all the things that I should have said in writing The Missing Link. I guess there's no way to get a book right on the first edition. My mentor Tom Koballa said the other day that you never really get any book absolutely right.

What I wish I had said in the Introduction was that I'm still learning about evolution. I'm not an expert at all. I come to learning about evolution late because I was schooled in the American South, where evolution is often skipped due to controversy. Also, my background in fundamentalist Christianity made me fearful of studying evolution. Writing The Link put me on the road to learning about evolution, but I know that road is a long one before I've filled in the holes in my background.

I'm sure that readers will find mistakes in the science in The Link. I just don't know enough yet to have nailed down the science clearly. I'd be fine if the topic were chemistry or physics. the areas I have taught as a high school teacher. Biology was actually my first love, but as a high school student I began veering away from biology because of the conflict I saw between evolution and my faith. Now, here I am 30 years later, turning back to what I was most interested in all along.

All of this is why I wish I had said in the book blatantly, "I'm an evolution learner." First, it's the reality. Although I wish I knew more about evolution, that's just not where I am right now. Second, I wish I had said that for the sake of the other teachers out there who, like me, are still catching up on their knowledge of evolution. Some may have had backgrounds similar to mine where they were afraid to study evolution. Others might be teachers from another certification area who find themselves unexpectedly teaching evolution. The Appendix in The Link is titled, "Help! I'm a Biology Teacher, and I Don't Think I Understand Evolution Myself." I wrote it to help teachers who, like me, need to learn more about evolution. In fact, that appendix presents the resources that were most helpful to me in deepening my understanding of evolution while I was writing the book.

I'm also wondering now if identifying ourselves as evolution learners is a good, not a bad, thing. Every week I see news of new findings in evolution, and I find another good book on it that I want to read. I can't keep up! I know students respond well to teachers who are open about how they are still learning. I think we'd all agree that if students say at the end the evolution unit, "Hmmm. I want to know more," that would be a great result of their study of evolution. With all of the new fossils coming out of the ground these days, I would think that we'd all have to be evolution learners.

Hearing Ken Miller's Balance

Ken Miller spoke at UAB last week, and I had the privilege of attending his lecture. I was impressed by two things he did. When it came scientific questions and issues, he stuck tenaciously to the evidence. He did this with clarity and expertise in his talk and in the Q&A time afterwards. When it came to questions and issues outside of science, he responded with grace and openness. The combination of the two approaches was powerful to watch.

With regard to evolution, he stuck to the science, and he didn't blink in the face of tough questions during the follow-up period. Some might think that he was attacking creationism and intelligent design, but I didn't. I heard him clearly delineating scientific approaches from non-scientific ones. He kept coming back to scientific evidence and scientific processes, and he kept exposing the inherently religious nature of creationism and ID.

When the issues touched on anything other than science, however, he was gracious and non-dogmatic. He defended religion throughout the Q&A time as something valuable and enriching to humans. He spoke easily and quickly of his own faith (Catholicism) without proselytizing. He pointed out the non-scientific statements that those like Richard Dawkins have made as they've used evolution to attack religion, but he refused to attack Dawkins himself and instead spoke kindly of him.

If you're not familiar with Dr. Miller's work, take a look at his evolution webpage. For me, I'm off to order a couple of his books to see what else I can learn from a man who is unapologetic about the evidence, but gracious in all else. (Also, I'm pretty challenged by his deep knowledge of the evidence for evolution. I still have much so much to learn about the evidence for evolution, but I'm getting more and more comfortable with viewing myself as someone learning about evolution. More on that soon.)

State-By-State Grades on Teaching Evolution

In The Missing Link, I took the stand that all students need to learn about evolution and that creationism/ID is not appropriate for teaching in public schools. That continues to be my stand. All students need to understand the piles and piles of evidence for evolution and how scientists explain evolution limiting themselves to natural processes. In The Link, though, I focused on how to do that in a way that is sensitive to and honors students who come to evolution with deep religious objections.

My UAB colleague, Rob Angus, just passed along to me a recently published analysis of how each U.S. state scored on the teaching of evolution. The title is Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science
Curriculum and How States Measure Up, and it's available free on-line. The graphic here is from that article, and the image gives the quick-view of the results. There's progress here with several Southern states improving their ratings. But, children in many states still don't appear to be getting the opportunity to even examine evolution at all.

Coming Soon: What I Wish I Had Said in The Missing Link

I guess every author has those things that, after the book comes out, he or she realizes, "Oh, dang, I should have said __________ ." I've had a few of those thoughts, and I'm hoping to post about them soon.

Interview on The Missing Link

Via the great folks at UAB Media Relations, here's a 2-minute overview of the UNBelieving Evolution approach.

Teaching Evolution Without Offending Religious Students from uabnews on Vimeo.

Learning about Whale Evolution from National Geographic

In The Missing Link, I laid out an inquiry on whale evolution that uses data from a written article. This is a different style of inquiry than many people think of, since the students don't collect the data themselves. That would be kind of hard for them to do, right, since they're not paleontologists! So, this style of inquiry has them looking at, thinking through, and explaining data that other scientists have collected and published.

The article is "The Evolution of Whales" from November, 2001, of National Geographic. I could not find an electronic version of the article anywhere, however. Probably, it's easily accessible to teachers, though, since most school media centers carry National Geographic. A work-around is Edward Babinski's web-based summary of the article, which also includes some nice drawings.

I like the article because of how it traces whale evolution in a broad sweep, rather than bogging down in the details. Although this 50,000-feet level will be helpful to middle- and high-schoolers who read the article, it will also probably cause them to trip up over some of the details. That's why I've created the graphic organizer that appears here for students' use when reading the article. The graphic organizer scaffolds the students' reading of the article by focusing them on the most important information. In The Missing Link, I proposed a fairly generic graphic organizer. I've been looking for this opportunity to develop one that is more specific, in case teachers need tighter scaffolding for the article.

Teachers can use this graphic organizer as a base for thinking about how much scaffolding their student need. Older students, or those who are adept at inquiry, need less scaffolding as they approach a complex data source. Teachers can remove some of the scaffolding by taking away the species names in the left-most column and thereby require students to decide as they read the article which species of the ones mentioned are the most important. By keeping the scientists' names in the graphic organizer, as shown in the version here, the students still have some guidance as they work. To remove almost all of the scaffolding, teachers would remove the scientist names as well.

Teachers can also scaffold the activity more tightly for younger students and students new to inquiry by filling in more information and thereby providing more guidance for the students as they work. The image shows a version I created by leaving the text for the cell on each line that I thought was the most difficult to extract from the article. This is the least obvious information, and by providing it to the students, I prevent frustration from impeding their process on the inquiry.

I created the last graphic organizer from a completely filled out one that is my version which I completed as I dug into the article. As I teach the inquiry, I'll have that version with me for my own reference if students get stuck. Since it was already filled out, removing information from some of the cells made creating the most structured version of the graphic organizer a 3-minute process.

Resources for a Lesson on the Evolution of HIV

In writing the Missing Link, I put together an outline for a lesson on using HIV resistance to help students better understand evolution. I'm starting now to flesh out that outline and find resources that teachers can tap in using an inquiry-based approach to teaching evolution.

In developing an inquiry, I always have to keep in mind my purpose. Maybe it's just me, but I always have to fight the tendency to drift to related science or to get lost in the evidence, forgetting my overall goal. So, I kept the following in mind as I worked:

• Lesson Purpose: Students examine evidence of the evolution of HIV in response to antiviral drugs as an example of evolution occurring in their lives right now
• Focus Question: What does the theory of evolution say?

In understanding the evidence, you and your students will probably need a big-picture understanding of HIV's genetic sequence. This one that I found is from the HIV database mentioned below, and it was a rosetta stone for me in understanding the rest of the evidence.

The source of evidence I worked with while writing the Missing Link was the research article "Mutations in Retroviral Genes Associated with Drug Resistance." The article summarizes the actual research detailing the evidence of HIV evolution at the codon level, but it is pretty technical, especially for use by secondary students. The site on which the article is posted gives other potentially good sources of evidence and resources that can be tapped for helping students understand the summary of mutations in the article.

I'm interested in the HIV Drug Resistance Database housed at Stanford University, and I'm focusing now on the portion of the site giving summaries of drug resistance. There, you and your students will find a section giving "Antiretriviral drug summaries." This seems to be a productive source for giving your students access to a high-level understanding of the clear evidence for HIV's constant and rapid mutation when it encounters drug therapy. Each of the links under that section takes you to a table giving the key mutations associated with a specific class of drug, and students can clearly see below the table the list of scientific publications from which the tables are constructed.

In the process, I stumbled on some other possibilities:

• The Geography Search Interface from HIV Databases Site gives a pretty amazing tool by which students can examine the evidence for geographical distribution of different strains of HIV worldwide. Great for visual and kinetic learners!
• If you or your students need to brush up on understanding HIV's basic structure or life cycle, a simple Google Images search gives a lot of quality images. I searched "HIV structure" and then looked at the web addresses for a sense of which ones were coming from reputable science sources. (Ok, I'll admit. Sometimes I also went for the easy stuff.)
• I just started playing with the TRIP database. I've been working at UAB's medical school for a couple of years now, and they are focusing students on evidence-based medicine (the science behind good practice). TRIP is a database of evidence-based medicine, and I got several good hits when I initially searched on HIV there. An interesting feature is that it give patient information leaflets, which might help students who are asking, "Why do we need to know this?"

My next step is to address how I would scaffold these resources differently for middle schoolers in a life science course and high schoolers in general biology. That may have to wait a couple of weeks, however. Next week looks pretty busy.

"Managing the Conflict..." online

Just found out that an earlier paper I had written on evolution is available on-line. It's "Managing the Conflict Between Evolution & Religion," and it appeared in 2000 in the American Biology Teacher. David Jackson and Liz Doster were my co-authors on the paper.

Book Update

Just in case you've missed the Twitter feed updates, I just finished the copy edits. The next step is the page edits in June, and then I'm finished with my work. The Missing Link: An Inquiry Based Approach for Teaching All Students About Evolution should be out in September.

Manuscript submitted!

Got the manuscript on the book submitted on Friday. I'm really excited! I had no idea, though, how consuming the last month of work would be.

Here's the basic outline, by chapter title.

Introduction
Framing the Issues
Deciding the Focus of Your Unit
Engaging Students in Studying Evolution
Guiding Students to Examine the Evidence for Evolution
Guiding Students to Examine Evolution Itself
Deepening Student Understanding & Addressing Objections
Using Project-Based Learning to Solidify Student Understanding
Conclusion
Help! I’m a Biology Teacher, and I Don’t Think I Understand Evolution Myself! (Appendix)

I'm hoping, after a couple of week of decompressing, to start blogging on the UNBelieve approach again. Lots has gone on in my head as I've finalized the manuscript.

(The picture is my favorite Caffeine Delivery System when writing. The red gizmo is a moka, which is an Italian stovetop espresso maker.)

(Oh yeah, my brain is numb!)

Book Update

I've been swamped with UAB work since Thanksgiving, and I haven't been able to get any work on the book done. I'm sitting down today to write, though, and I'm glad to be getting back into it.

I've finished the first draft of the core 7 chapters; so, here's the plan:


-Work back through chapters 1-7, tightening them up and making sure the message is coherent. I've been working on these chapters across a full year now; so, I know some of the things that I wrote in the earlier chapters isn't consistent with my message now.

-Write the introductory chapter and the concluding chapter.

-Finalize Appendix 1, which is chiefly the resources I'm pointing teachers to.

-If time, write a new Appendix 2, which will be on the pedagogy model I'm employing in the book. I'm calling that the Spain Park Model, and it's the graphic included here in the post. Click the title of this post to take you to a PDF of the graphic.

-Submit the manuscript by my deadline of Feb 1. Heinemann says it will be out by this time next year.