Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

Edu 265: Multicultural Education Process Paper

Edu 265 fulfills an Advanced General Education course requirement at Loras
College; thus, you are expected to complete a Process Paper. Traditionally
students have focused their paper on the achievement gap, and the rubric below is
focused on that topic. However, your paper may focus on any subject related to
multicultural education. If you would like to focus your paper on a topic other than
the achievement gap, please submit a paper copy of your proposal in class on Sept.
17. You proposal should include your paper topic and possible themes, essential
questions, or subtopics for the paper.
The due dates for this paper are as follows:

Oct. 10: Section One-3-4 pages

Oct. 31: Section Two-5-6 pages total
Nov. 21: Section Three-9-10 pages total. This is the due date for your entire
paper.

Note: If you seek assistance from the Writing Center prior to submitting at least 2
out of 3 sections of this paper, I will automatically increase your final process paper
grade by 1/3 of a letter grade.
I will use the rubrics below to grade the papers that focus on the achievement gap.
If you choose an alternate topic, the rubric will be adjusted accordingly.
Process paper #2: due 10/31
Area
Paper length
Grammar and
Mechanics
Clearly stated
focus/thesis/claim/point
of view

Met (9-10)
The paper is double
spaced and 3-4 pages in
length.
Writing is virtually error
free

Organization

Claim identifies the

writers position and
shares an awareness of
the scope of the paper
Main ideas are clear and
coherent throughout.
Progression between
paragraphs is smooth
and effective

Themes of Multicultural

Themes related to MCE

Emerging (6-8)
The paper is not 3-4
pages in length.

Not Met (0-5)

The paper is not 3-4
pages in length.

One or two minor errors

but overall errors do not
detract from writers
meaning
Claim/thesis/focus is
only loosely related to
the overarching goal of
the assignment
Ideas are generally clear
and coherent but may
have occasional places
of confusion

Noticeable
spelling/grammar or
punctuation issues
present
Does not present an
identifiable
claim/thesis/focus

Themes of MCE are

How the writer will

Attempt to organize but

fails to do so coherently.
Confusing more than
clear

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Education

are explored thoroughly

and explicitly

Works Cited Page

The paper includes a

works cited page with a
minimum of three
sources and the
information provided is
accurate
The paper includes the
necessary revisions
suggested by your
teacher from the
previous process paper.

Revisions

identified as topics that

will be explored in later
sections
The paper includes a
works cited page, but
fails to include accurate
information and/or
includes fewer than
three sources
The paper somewhat
addresses the revisions
suggested by your
teacher from the
previous paper.

Matt Nelson
incorporate MCE
themes is unclear
The paper fails to
include a works cited
page

The paper fails to make

the necessary revisions
suggested by your
teacher from the
previous paper.

Religion in schools
What is the debate all about? How important/prevalent is the issue? Historical context.
What are the benefits/downsides to religion in schools? Pertaining to science.
What should be done? How to deal with a sensitive subject? How do I plan to approach?

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

Teaching Evolution in a
Multicultural Classroom
Multicultural education is a multifaceted term that stretches much
further than many realize. The term elicits thoughts of Brown v. Board and
maybe even celebrating Cinco de Mayo in the classroom as part of Hispanic
heritage month. Culture however, is much deeper than race alone, and one
of the most important and world-wide issues it encompasses is religion.
Religion is huge everywhere, but its especially vast here in the U.S. where
92% of its citizens say they believe in God (Americans United, 2012). In fact,
America is the most religious developed nation by a long shot, with 63% of
people saying that they believe in God with absolute certainty; the runner up
Iceland sits at 50% (Coyne, 2012). So when we look at multicultural
education in the U.S., religion in schools must be one of the first areas
addressed. One of the most poignant issues with religion in schools is the
debate between evolution and intelligent design (ID).
The debate is one of great concern to me as a prospective biology
teacher, therefore understanding it inside and out is extremely important. It
can permeate into every aspect of the biology classroom. Evolution is the
currently taught theory in schools, but there is a lot of pushing by certain
people to get ID into the classroom. In one case in the Dover area in
Delaware, the school district was taken to court. Some of the board members
there wanted the inclusion of a disclaimer to be added to evolution teachings

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

that alluded to ID as an alternative theory (Ravitch, 2012). In order to

deliberate on the best course of action in the classroom one must first
understand what the debate is about and why it is so important. After
gaining some understanding it will be possible to weigh the sides and see
some benefits and downsides to each. Finally, as a new teacher I must
decide what I think should be done and figure out my own personal plan to
approach the situation.
So what is the debate all about? Evolution is a well-known theory in
biology that attempts to answer that all-important question-- where do we
come from? It does this through the mechanisms of natural selection and
genetic mutations; both of which lead to the evolution of everything on the
planet (including humans) from small single-celled organisms (Le Beau,
2007). It was Charles Darwin who wrote the book The Origin of Species in
1859, which put forth these ideas, and it has been in conflict with religion
ever since. The problem being that many aspects of evolution come in direct
conflict with the Bible in stories such as Adam and Eve, the creation of the
earth, the special creation of humans, and even the great deluge. For this
reason evolution has been on the bad side of most religious leaders since its
conception. Most attacked the new theory calling it the most extreme
manifestation of the atheistical tendency [is] inherent in the idea of
evolution (Le Beau, 2007). Still others embraced it, saying it only
strengthened the role that God plays. Regardless of the churches opinions,
evolution is currently the theory that modern biology is built on; everything

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

in the field stems from it. All biological research and their results are based
on it. More and more evidence is produced daily that solidifies its validity. For
this reason it is the theory that is being taught today in U.S. classrooms. ID is
the theologians answer to the theory that suggested that a God wasnt
actually necessary for life to exist on Earth.
ID is a theory that suggests that evolution might not have the whole
story. At its core ID states that many things in our world point to it needing
some sort of creator or designer. Much like evolution it has two main
components. Firstly, it fills gaps in evolutionary biology, such as the
incompleteness of the fossil record, by referring to some kind of maker that
need not work in a gradual process. Secondly, ID uses a term called
irreducible complexity that states that certain things in the world have no
simpler forms and could not work without all the pieces (Ravitch, 2012). This
idea fits into an analogy about a mousetrap nicely. A mousetrap works well
at what it does, but every part is essential to its functionality. If the
mousetrap were an organism, an ID proponent would argue that no step by
step evolution of separate parts could culminate into the completed working
product. One of the most famous real world examples of this if the flagellum
of bacteria; which works by using a motor type system of proteins to propel
the cell through its environment (Miller, 2013). These two components are
the reason the proponents think that ID must at least be mentioned
alongside evolution as an alternative. This would, in their minds, create a
greater learning potential since it makes the students think critically about

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

what they choose to believe. This is a nice line of thinking but the
background of ID has only helped to fuel the debate.
IDs roots reach back to early attempts to bring religion back into the
classroom through the creationist movement. Creation science was the
anti-evolutionists first attempt at reintroducing religion after evolution really
took hold in the U.S. after the launching of Sputnik. It was styled to look like
a science by adopting the language and avoiding the religious purpose that
got them blocked in the scopes trial. Their theory was blocked however by
the Supreme Court in 1987, when it was ruled unconstitutional (Le Beau,
2007). The constitutions wall between church and state made it too hard to
pass any kind of education legislation that had anything in it resembling God.
IDs creators have been extremely careful to leave this sort of legislation
killing material out of the theory. Instead of focusing on getting a creator into
the classroom, it works to poke holes in evolution by using its two main
components, mentioned before.
Understanding the basis of the debate is not the only background
information one must have to unravel what should be taught in a classroom.
Understanding the importance of the debate and the delicacy one must use
while approaching it is equally as crucial to understand. As stated before,
religion is a huge part of culture world-wide, but is even more important in
the United States. Religion has a rich and vast history of people who will do
anything to protect their beliefs, and rightfully so. This mind-set becomes

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

problematic when teaching something that doesnt exactly agree with the
ideas of said religion such as evolution; (from this point on it may be
assumed that the said religion is Christianity. This is due to the fact that of
the 92% of people that believe in God in the U.S., 78.4% align themselves
with Christianity specifically (Americans United, 2012)). With so many
discrepancies it would almost be a statistical impossibility not to teach
someone whose beliefs disagree with whats being taught. For example, a
study from the UK interviewed both experienced and trainee teachers on the
effects of the debate in their classrooms. The first question asked if they had
encountered a creationist challenge to the theory of evolution; both
experienced (13/29) and trainee teachers (7/35) answered that they had
(Cleaves, 2007). This coming from the UK has huge implications here in the
US as their population was polled as showing more than 70% agreement to
the statement human beings, as we know them today, developed from an
earlier species of animals. Only 40% agreement occurs here (Coyne, 2012).
In teaching a theory that conflicts with a majority of the populations closely
held beliefs, and therefore culture, the road must be tread carefully. Answers
to conflicts in the class must be handled with respect and knowledge on the
topic.
With the background knowledge on both sides of the debate, one can
begin to look closer at the benefits and pitfalls to teaching one or the other.
Evolution is currently the accepted teaching theory in Americas schools, so
its benefits have to be substantial. It is a testable and quantifiable part of the

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

scientific process. In many ways evolution exemplifies science as a whole

because it is one of the main and basic principals there within. Evolution is
taught because, as a legitimate science, it doesnt care what anyone
believes, it simply states our most sound hypotheses as a way to describe
the world by using only observable evidence (Coyne, 2012). Basically it
teaches good science. It is highly doubtful that anyone can effectively argue
that evolution should not be taught in science class. It is not only the theory
that modern science is built on, it absolutely must be taught to students in
order to allow them to prosper in any scientific field. Since IDs proponents
are trying to get it into the classroom under questionable terms, it is the
theory that must be looked at very carefully.
If one were to fully accept the claim from IDs proponents, that it is in
no way affiliated with religion or religious practices, the theory can begin to
be looked at more seriously as a teachable subject. IDs main proponents are
essentially all part of the organization called the Center for Science & Culture
(CSC). The CSC states that the goals of ID are simply to propose a different
thinking about what has happened in the history of life on Earth. The
organization declares its independence from religion as a whole and states
that their work comes from a purely scientific point of view. They dont argue
that evolution shouldnt be taught in schools, but that students should simply
be aware of its existence and its challenges of Darwinian evolution. The
people at CSC work to find inconsistencies in evolution and simply attempt to
answer them with a different theory. Science is built off the idea that it is

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

always changing and questioning itself to delve deeper to find more truth;
since in truth this is what ID does (questions current scientific theories) the
CSC would like for ID to have some say in schools. This extra theory in
schools would supposedly create a better learning environment for every
science student due to the critical thinking that must take place to find truths
(CSC, 2012). Teaching ID would also allow some more academic freedom to
any teachers that have issues with evolution on a personal level.
Arnold Loewy argues that religion must not be endorsed or
disapproved according to the constitution. Since ID doesnt endorse any
religion, just some sort of designer (supernatural or not), it should be given a
place in the classroom; not doing so because of its supposed connection to
religious teachings in the past expresses hostility towards religion (Lowey,
2007). The CSC states that since ID is indeed a branch of science, it should
be taught in order to give our students the best education they can have.
This claim, however, is one that many members of the scientific community
question, and where one can begin to contemplate the negatives associated
with teaching ID.
A vast majority of respected scientists label ID as bad science, that is,
something that really shouldnt be able to be considered such at all. It is
seen this way because it has no truly testable methods. ID theory creates
questions that can never have answers in our empirical universe (short of a
creator telling us what it did). Another downfall is the lack of education in the

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

theory. No teachers need any kind of teaching in ID theory and most would
be unable to teach the theory efficiently or effectively. In the end ID can
really only be seen as a philosophical theory seen through a scientific lens.
This idea combined with IDs questionable past and supposed connections to
religion make it a very debatable topic to teach in the classroom, to say the
least. That being said, there is also one problem that the CSC brings forth
that agrees with a few other arguments in various articles that demands
some attention. The CSC argues that schools now teach a one-sided
classroom that censors its own critiques. They look to move the classroom
away from this kind of indoctrination and into education (CSC, 2012). This
point has some credibility, evolution is our best theory of how the world
functions but it is still imperfect (as are all scientific theories), and should
therefore be mentally challenged in order to enhance itself. Anything beyond
this mental challenging however, is folly.
That line of thought is one in which I intend to follow in my own
classroom. As an aspiring high school biology teacher, I will strive to give my
students the best possible background in science that I can give them. This is
only magnified by my scientific background and passion for any field of study
found within the scientific realm. As Ive made clear in the prior pages, I will
be teaching students whose beliefs come in direct conflict with the subject of
evolution; it is simply a statistical fact. For this reason I think that it would be
beneficial to everyone in the classroom, including myself, to take some time
to discuss the matter and give the students the opportunity to explore the

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

issues at hand. Since science is constantly correcting itself it thrives when

people challenge its current precedents, because it gives science a chance to
correct things that may be wrong, or to solidify its current findings. I think
that ID proponents are correct in saying that it is a way to challenge
evolution and to make our students better critical thinkers this will be a part
of my curriculum.
When I consider my own personal philosophy on teaching I hold selfdiscovery very highly, that is, the ability to come to conclusions about a topic
by ones self. My own personal experiences have led me to believe that the
theory of ID is false and irresponsibly calls itself science. As stated before, it
is not accepted into the school curriculum like evolution is and I do believe it
should be fought against. It has untestable hypotheses and is rooted heavily
in religious backgrounds. Teaching ID as a true replacement or even a
possible alternate theory goes against scientific processes and should
therefore never be seriously taught to students. IDs proponents even admit
that there is no good education needed on the subject so most all teachers
would be inadequate to teach the subject anyway. Leading the students to
the information and then being unable to answer questions because of a lack
of knowledge would leave the student more confused than before. On the
other hand, ID does present a wonderful way to question science and a way
to teach students to be critical of anything they hear whether that be in
science or on the evening news.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

When considering self-discovery, I think that a great way to begin a

course in biology or really any biological science is to make sure the students
understand what science as a whole is, and how it changes. This path can
very naturally lead into the ID evolution debate by giving the students a
currently practiced theory and challenging it with another. The students
could then research both and decide why ID just doesnt stand up. This whole
assignment could take place in class and I feel everyone would have a
greater understanding of what science is as a whole and the critical lens it
must be looked at through. This is the plan I look to take into action as I
begin to fit more into my skin in my own classroom.
The debate is a tough one that can definitely ruffle feathers; but I think
that as long as I remain unbiased to the classroom and let them truly find out
the answers for themselves, critics of my teaching style would have no
ground to stand on. As for now though, the debate continues on and I think
that in simply ignoring it a teacher can miss out on some great learning
opportunities and teachable moments. I think the courts have made and will
continue to make good decisions on keeping ID and similar theories out of
the general curriculum, but hopefully talking about its existence is something
teachers dont have to be afraid of. Looking at education I feel it is my job to
inspire and excite my students and such a heated and sensitive debate could
really get them interested when introduced early in the course. This is on a
parallel with any other multicultural debate that can be seen in other types
of classrooms. Engaging the student becomes easier when they can argue

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

their point because it hits closer to home, whether that be religious beliefs or
otherwise. Although challenging, breaking down these multicultural barriers
is essential to a great learning experience.

Works Cited
Americans United (2012). Academic freedom is no excuse for teaching
religion in public schools. retrieved Oct 09, 2013, from
https://www.au.org/
Center for Science and Culture (2012). .Retrieved October 28 2013, from
www.intelligentdesign.org Web Site:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Cleaves, A., & Toplis, R. (2007). In the shadow of intelligent design: The
teaching of evolution. JBE, 42(1), 30-34.
Coyne, J. A. (2012). Science, religion, and society: The problem of evolution in
America. Evolution, 66(8), 2654-662.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Process Paper #1

Matt Nelson

Le Beau, B. F. (2007). Science and religion: A historical perspective on the

conflict over teaching evolution in the schools. Radical History
Review, 2007(99), 187-201.
Loewy, A. H. (2007). The wisdom and constitutionality of teaching intelligent
design in public schools. Retrieved Oct 28, 2013, from
http://repository.law.ttu.edu/handle/10601/609
Miller, K. R. (2012). The Flagellum Unspun. Retrieved Oct 15, 2013, from
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Ravitch, F. S. (2012). Law, religion and science- Determining the role religion
plays in shaping scientific inquiry in constitutional democracies- The
case of intelligent design. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social
Justice, 4(1), 191-204.