INCORPORATING THE GREAT DINOSAUR FEUD IN GEOSCIENCE CLASSROOMS: A RESEARCH STUDY

The controversy that surrounded the dinosaur discoveries and research of Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope illustrates that science is not always conducted cooperatively and in the common pursuit of truth, but instead reflects the culture, society, and biases of the scientists who do the work. The Dinosaur Feud also demonstrates how conflicts and errors in science are ultimately revealed and corrected by the scientific community, and how our scientific knowledge is restructured when new information is available (Duschl 1994).

We incorporated the dinosaur feud in an online graduate level paleontology course comprised primarily of practicing teachers. When vertebrates—and particularly dinosaurs—were introduced, we assigned the Cope-Marsh Dinosaur Feud to our practicing teachers (N = 16) in order to demonstrate the non-linear progression, and sometimes aberrant nature, of scientific investigations that makes science a human endeavor. Each student was assigned a role in the dinosaur debate, as an investigation to “defend” the practices of either Cope or Marsh. Students then designed activities in which to present the Dinosaur Feud within their own classrooms.

Our practicing teachers submitted a variety of activities by which to infuse this interesting episode in the history of dinosaur research into the classroom. Many of these activities are adaptable for a variety of classrooms, and can serve as a portal through which our students can gain a more robust understanding of the integration of scientific advancement with the historical and social context of discovery.

We think this “soap opera” history of dinosaur research can provide the hook for students to see science as a more interesting endeavor (Matthews 1994), and humanize our science curriculum (Jenkins 1989). Martin Rudwick (1985) noted that scientific knowledge was the result of intense argument among a small group of ambitious researchers; the Cope-Marsh debates typify this type of controversial advancement.