Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current Status of Research in Teaching and Learning Evolution: II. Pedagogical Issues

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is the second of two articles that address recent scholarship about teaching and learning about evolution. This second review seeks to summarize this state of affairs and address the implications of this work for the classroom by addressing four basic questions: (1) What is evolution?/What components of the theory are important at the introductory level? (2) Why do students and members of the public at large need to understand evolution? (3) What makes evolution difficult to teach and learn? and (4) What promising instructional approaches have been developed and tested? The paper will also focus on concerns about both the research designs and the measures used in this work. Based on this review, I will then propose a set of pedagogical implications and recommendations for the classroom instructor and call for studies to address specific gaps identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Instructional strategies to promote student understanding of geological time (Dodick and Orion 2003a, b) have been proposed but have met with limited success.

  2. Scientists who address the issue of the appearance of life do, of course, apply evolutionary principles and constraints in their work. The argument here is twofold: (1) that, in the strictest sense, Darwin’s theory did not claim to answer this question and (2) that student response to bundling this issue with common descent makes understanding more difficult for many students.

  3. Note: This study asked children about the origins of both living things (birds and monkeys) but also human artifacts, natural evens, and natural objects.

  4. Science itself, of course, is not atheistic or anti-theistic, but is non-theistic; it takes no position on the existence of the supernatural (Smith et al. 1995). Strictly speaking, science (as opposed to scientists) requires methodological naturalism but not philosophical naturalism (Plantinga 1997). Some authors (Dawkins 2006; Mahner and Bunge 1996, etc.) have argued that science and the supernatural are hopelessly enmeshed and cannot be separated so neatly. Others have argued more recently that science can test supernatural claims and worldviews (Fishman 2009). Although I recognize that these claims have some merit and have addressed them in some detail in the accompanying paper, I find them to have little or no place in high school biology or pre-service science teacher education. I personally reject any claim that modern science should take any position on the existence of the supernatural or make any claims about supernatural causes or designs.

  5. Epistemological and religious issues are largely addressed in the accompanying paper.

  6. Although long necks have been assumed to be an adaptive advantage for populations of the species (not individuals) because longer necks increased access to food, recent research has shown that giraffes do not typically feed on leaves from the highest branches and has suggested that the strong necks of giraffes provide, instead, a greater advantage in fighting for mates (Simmons and Scheepers 1996).

  7. Although Evans distinguishes between Lamarckian explanations (as defined in the text here) and needs-based or purposeful change, many authors inappropriately use the terms synonymously. Kampourakis and Zogza 2007) appropriately note that Lamarck’s viewed use and disuse (not need) as the driver of change. Therefore, this manuscript does not employ the Lamarckian label.

  8. These studies were conducted in largely Christian cultures in Scotland and Kenya. In other settings, this measure should be revised to measure attitudes toward the prevailing religions in that community.

  9. The CINS has recently been criticized on several fronts by Nehm and Schonfeld (2008), but the response from the authors (including additional data) (Anderson and Fisher 2009) seems to adequately address the concerns raised by these authors.

  10. Other useful typologies include that of Ratzsch (2000): independent, inseparably blended or related in various ways; and Nord (1999): religion trumps science, science trumps religion, independence, and integration.

References

  • Aguillard, D. (1999). Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: A decade following Edwards v. Aguillard. The American Biology Teacher, 61, 182–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 269–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. (2005). Teaching biological evolution in higher education: Methodological, religious, and nonreligious issues. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56, 1891–1901.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS/National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2007). Teaching the theory of evolution in social, intellectual, and pedagogical context. Science Education, 91, 664–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. L., & Fisher, K. M., & Author. (2009). Support for the CINS as a Diagnostic Conceptual Inventory: Response to Nehm & Schonfeld (2008). Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

  • Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 952–978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2006). On developing content-oriented theories taking biological evolution as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 673–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asghar, A., Wiles, J. R., & Alters, B. (2007). Canadian pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of biological evolution and evolution education. McGill Journal of Education, 42, 189–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandoli, J. H. (2008). Do state science standards matter? The American Biology Teacher, 70, 212–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 373–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, I. G. (2000). When science meets religion: Enemies, strangers or partners?. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, P. M. (2004). Middle school student learning in evolution: Are current standards achievable? The American Biology Teacher, 66, 604–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkman, M. B., Pacheco, J. S., & Plutzer, E. (2008). Evolution and creationism in America’s classrooms: A national portrait. PLoS Biology, 6, e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2005). The nature of science and the study of biological evolution. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bizzo, N. M. (1994). From down house landlord to Brazilian high school students: What has happened to evolutionary knowledge on the way? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 537–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived consequences of evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education, 87, 181–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brumby, M. (1979). Problems in learning the concept of natural selection. Journal of Biological Education, 13, 119–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catley, K. M. (2006). Darwin’s missing link—a novel paradigm for evolution education. Science Education, 90, 767–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catley, K. M., & Novick, L. R. (2009). Digging deep: Exploring college students’ knowledge of macroevolutionary time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H. H., Kahle, J. B., & Nordland, F. H. (1985). An investigation of high school biology textbooks as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics and some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69, 707–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). Children’s understanding of inheritance. Journal of Biological Education, 19, 304–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colburn, A., & Henriques, L. (2006). Clergy views on evolution, creationism, science, and religion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 419–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., Lay, M. C., & Taylor, N. (2004). An investigation of cognitive dissonance between religious beliefs and scientific thinking. In D. B. Zandvliet (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching (pp. 1–19). Philadelphia: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting perspective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 613–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of college students: The case of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 429–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deadman, J. A., & Kelly, P. J. (1978). What do secondary school boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics? Journal of Biological Education, 12, 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1995a). Students’ conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in evolution. Science Education, 79, 637–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demastes, S. S., Settlage J. Jr., & Good, R. (1995b). Students’ conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 535–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deniz, H., Donnelly, L. A., & Yilmaz, I. (2008). Exploring the factors related to acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: Toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 420–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003a). Introducing evolution to non-biology majors via the fossil record: A case study from the Israeli high school system. The American Biology Teacher, 65, 185–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003b). Cognitive factors affecting student understanding of geologic time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 415–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational psychologist, 33, 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, L. A., & Boone, W. J. (2007). Biology teachers’ attitudes toward and use of Indiana’s evolution standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 236–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., (2007). Bibliography-STCSE: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Leibniz Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel, Keil, Germany. Available from: http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html. Accessed Mar 17 2009.

  • Evans, E. M. (2000). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 221–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M. (2006). Teaching and learning about evolution. In J. Diamond & C. Zimmer (Eds.), Virus and the whale: Exploring evolution in creatures small and large (pp. 25–37). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 263–294). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eve, R. A., & Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology & creationism in the classroom? The American Biology Teacher, 52, 10–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber, P. (2003). Teaching evolution & the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 65, 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, M., & Chi, M. T. (1998). The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1231–1256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, Y. I. (2009). Can science test supernatural worldviews? Science & Education, 18, 813–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, L. J., & Greer, J. E. (2001). Shaping adolescents’ attitudes towards science and religion in Northern Ireland: The role of scientism, creationism and denominational schools. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulljames, P., Gibson, H. M., & Francis, L. J. (1991). Creationism, scientism, Christianity and science: A study in adolescent attitudes. British Educational Research Journal, 17, 171–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geraedts, C. L., & Boersma, K. T. (2006). Reinventing natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 843–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E. D., Jr. (1990). The logic of university students’ misunderstanding of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 875–885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, J. A., & Brem, S. K. (2001). The perceived impact of evolutionary theory: Implications for teacher education. St. Louis, MO: Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, J., & Brem, S. K. (2004). Teaching evolutionary biology: Pressures, stress, and coping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 791–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M. W., & Treagust, D. (1984). Research data necessary for meaningful review of grade ten high school genetics curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 197–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokayem, H., & BouJaoude, S. (2008). College students’ perceptions of the theory of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 395–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, F. (1983). The intelligent universe. London, UK: Michael Joseph Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, E. L., & Nelson, C. E. (2006). Relationship between achievement and students’ acceptance of evolution or creation in an upper-level evolution course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. F., Doster, E., Meadows, L., & Wood, T. (1995). Hearts and minds in the science classroom: The education of a confirmed evolutionist. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 585–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in students’ understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 879–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Teaching evolution using a historically rich curriculum & paired problem solving instructional strategy. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 208–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (1990). Los esquemas conceptuales sobre la seleccion natural: Analisis y propuestas para un cambio conceptual. Doctoral Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2007). Students’ preconceptions about evolution: How accurate is the characterization as “Lamarckian” when considering the history of evolutionary thought? Science & Education, 16(3–5), 393–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science & Education, 17(1), 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2009). Preliminary evolutionary explanations: A basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Science & Education, 18(10), 1313–1340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D., & DiYanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khourey-Bowers, C. (2006). Structured academic controversy: A peaceful approach to controversial issues. The American Biology Teacher, 68, e43–e47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koever, H. (2008). A reason for everything: Instinctively making sense of the world. Berkeley Science and Reviews 15. Available from http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=15&article=briefs_07. Accessed 5 Nov 2009.

  • Lawson, A. E., & Weser, J. (1990). The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about life: Effects of instruction and reasoning skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 589–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation; effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 143–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of the Nature of Science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombrozo, T., Shtulman, A., & Weisberg, M. (2006). The intelligent design controversy: Lessons from psychology and education. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1996). Is religious education compatible with science education? Science & Education, 5:101–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, D. (2001). Effect of a curriculum containing creation stories on attitudes about evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 63, 404–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. (2004). Believers and disbelievers in evolution. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y. G., & Strayer, J. (2002). Creationist vs. evolutionary beliefs: Effects on learning biology. The American Biology Teacher, 64, 189–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, L., Doster, E., & Jackson, D. F. (2000). Managing the conflict between evolution & religion. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 102–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. R. (2008). Only a theory: Evolution and the battle for America’s soul. New York: Viking Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mindell, D. P. (2006). The evolving world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. (2007). What are students taught about evolution? McGill Journal of Education, 42, 177–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R., & Kraemer, K. (2005). The teaching of evolution and creationism in Minnesota. The American Biology Teacher, 67, 457–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R., Mitchell, G., Bally, R., Inglis, M., Day, J., & Jacobs, D. (2002). Undergraduates’ understanding of evolution: Ascriptions of agency as a problem for student learning. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S. (2009). Preservice teacher understanding and vision of how to teach biological evolution. Evolution Education & Outreach, 2, 490–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences, Working Group on Teaching Evolution. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H. (2006). Faith-based evolution education? BioScience, 56, 638–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience, 57, 263–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: A comparison of the CINS, an opoen-response instrument, and an oral interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1131–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2008). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 699–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C. E. (2000). Effective strategies for teaching evolution and other controversial topics. In J. W. Skehan & C. E. Nelson (Eds.), The creation controversy & the science classroom (pp. 19–50). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C. E. (2008). Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: Strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48, 213–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickels, M. K., & Nelson, C. E. (2005). Beware of nuts & bolts: Putting evolution into the teaching of biological classification. The American Biology Teacher, 67, 283–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieswandt, M., & Bellomo, K. (2009). Written extended-response questions as classroom assessment tools for meaningful understanding of evolutionary theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 333–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, W. A. (1999). Science, religion, and education. Phi Delta Kappan, 91, 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1987). Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, S., & Bee, N. V. (1992). The effect of expository text on students’ explanations of biological evolution. OERI Report. University of Pittsburgh: Learning Research and Development Center.

  • Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, W. G. Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 76–116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1937). La construction du reel chez l’enfant [the construction of reality in the child]. Neuchâtel, France: Delachaux et Niestlé.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1946). Le développement de la notion de temps chez l’enfant [development of the child’s conception of time]. Paris: Presses Universitaires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1964). Part 1: Cognitive development in children. Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993a). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993b). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, A. (1997). Methodological naturalism? Philos Anal Orig Des 18. Available from http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm. Accessed Mar 19 2009.

  • Plutzer, E., & Berkman, M. (2008). Trends: Evolution, creationism and the teaching of human origins in schools. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 540–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, K. J. (2002). Teaching for idea-based transformative experiences in science: An investigation of the effectiveness of two instructional elements. Teachers College Record, 104, 1101–1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, K. J., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L. K., Stewart, V. C., & Manzey, C. (2009). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: A study of deep engagement in science. Science Education. Available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122324374/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0. Accessed 5 Nov 2009.

  • Ramorogo, G., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Batswana children’s understanding of biological inheritance. Journal of Biological Education, 29, 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratzsch, D. L. (2000). Science & its limits: The natural sciences in Christian perspective (2nd edn). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudge, D. W. (2000). Does being wrong make Kettlewell wrong for science teaching? Journal of Biological Education, 35, 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudge, D. W. (2004). Using the history of research on industrial melanism to help students better appreciate the nature of science. In D. Metz (Ed) Proceedings of the seventh international history, philosophy and science teaching group meeting (pp. 761–772). Winnipeg, Canada.

  • Rudge, D. W., Greer, U. C., & Howe, E. M. (2007). But is it effective? Assessing the impact of a historically-based unit. Ninth International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference. Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 561–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1069–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutledge, M. L., & Mitchell, M. A. (2002). High school biology teachers’ knowledge structure, acceptance & teaching of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 64, 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (1999). The development and validation of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutledge, M., & Warden, M. (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of science & high school biology teachers: Critical relationships. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2005). Evolutionary theory as a guide to socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, G., & Valcarcel, M. V. (1993). Diseño de unidades didacticas en el área de ciencians experimentales. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 11, 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann, L. C. (2005). A proactive strategy for teaching evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 67, 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann, L. C., & Harris, W. H. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and applying the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 375–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Settlage, J., & Jensen, M. (1996). Investigating the inconsistencies in college student responses to natural selection test questions. Electronic Journal of Science and Education 1. Available from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/settlage.html. Accessed Mar 19 2009.

  • Shankar, G., & Skoog, G. D. (1993). Emphasis given evolution and creationism by Texas high school biology teachers. Science Education, 77, 221–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipman, H. L., Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z., & Letts, W. J., IV (2002). Changes in student views of religion and science in a college astronomy course. Science Education, 86, 526–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 170–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, R. E., & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning by a neck: Sexual selection in the evolution of giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 771–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Brem, S. K., & Evans, E. M. (2008). Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 189–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17, 219–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Siegel, H. (2004). Knowing, believing, and understanding: What goals for science education? Science & Education, 13, 553–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., Siegel, H., & McInerney, J. D. (1995). Foundational issues in evolution education. Science & Education, 4, 23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southerland, S. A., & Nadelson, L. S. (in press). The development and evaluation of the measure of understanding of macroevolution: Introducing the MUM. Journal of Experimnental Education.

  • Sundberg, M. D., & Dini, M. L. (1993). Science majors vs. nonmajors: Is there a difference? Journal of College Science Teaching, 22, 299–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trani, R. (2004). I won’t teach evolution: It’s against my religion. And now for the rest of the story. The American Biology Teacher, 66, 419–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trowbridge, J. E., & Wandersee, J. (1994). Identifying critical junctures in learning in a college course on evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 459–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhey, S. D. (2005). The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes toward creationism and evolution. Bioscience, 55, 996–1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, C. S., & Scharmann, L. C. (2001). High school students’ perceptions of evolutionary theory. Electronic Journal of Science and Education 6. Available from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/woodsetal.html. Accessed Mar 20 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, GA, 31201, USA

    Mike U. Smith

Authors
  1. Mike U. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike U. Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, M.U. Current Status of Research in Teaching and Learning Evolution: II. Pedagogical Issues. Sci & Educ 19, 539–571 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9216-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9216-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation