Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Learning and Intending to Teach Evolution: Concerns of Pre-service Biology Teachers

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  • Alberts, B., & Labov, J. B. (2004). From the national academies: teaching the science of evolution. Cell Biology Education, 3(2), 75–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(10), 952–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antolin, M. F., & Herbers, J. M. (2001). Perspective: evolution’s struggle for existence in America’s public schools. Evolution, 55(12), 2379–2388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balgopal, M. M., & Montplaisir, L. M. (2011). Meaning making: what reflective essays reveal about biology students’ ideas about natural selection. Instructional Science, 39(2), 137–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battisti, B. T., Handegan, N., Sudweeks, R., & Cates, R. (2010). Using item response theory to conduct a distracter analysis on conceptual inventory of natural selection. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 845–868.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizzo, N. M. V. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–536). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas about evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demastes-Southerland, S., Settlage, J., & Good, R. (1995). Students’ conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 535–550.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (1989). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35, 125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D. J. (1998). Evolutionary biology (3rd ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D. J. (Ed.). (1999). Evolution, science, and society: evolutionary biology and the national research agenda. New Brunswick: Office of University Publications, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1973). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldston, M. J. D., & Kyzer, P. (2009). Teaching evolution: narratives with a view from three southern biology teachers in the U.S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(7), 762–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions ad conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, J. A., & Brem, S. K. (2004). Teaching evolutionary biology: pressures, stress, and coping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 791–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, M., Haury, D. L., & Nehm, R. H. (2012). Feeling of certainty: uncovering the missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 95–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. F., Doster, E. C., 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(6), 585–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A., Southerland, S. A., & Sowell, S. (2006). Dissatisfied with the fruitfulness of “learning ecologies.” Science Education, 90(5), 907–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalinowski, S. T., Leonard, M. J., & Andrews, T. M. (2010). Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of DNA. CBE Life Science Education, 9(2), 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of motivational beliefs in conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 115–136). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Long, D. E. (2012). The politics of teaching evolution, science education standards, and being a Creationist. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 122–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. (2000). The revival of creationism in the United States. Journal of Biological Education, 35(10), 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, H. (2007). Mirror, mirrors on the wall, who is the most powerful of all: a self-study analysis of power relationships in science methods courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1370–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching evolution and the nature of science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2008). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: a comparison of the CINS, an open-response instrument, and an oral interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1131–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2010). The future of natural selection knowledge measurement: a reply to Anderson et al. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 358–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niewswandt, M., & Bellomo, K. (2009). Written extended-response questions as classroom assessment tool for meaningful understanding of evolutionary theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 333–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opfer, J. E., Nehmn, R. H., & Ha, M. (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 744–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. B. (1993). 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, P. (1996). Biological evolution. Fort Worth: Saunders College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rector, M. A., Nehm, R. H., & Pearl, D. (2012). Learning the language of evolution: lexical ambiguity and word meaning in student explanations. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9296-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, M. F. (2004). College students’ understandings of natural selection: moving from a Lamarckian perspective to a Darwinian point of view. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association of Researchers of Science Teaching. British Columbia: Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settlage, J. & Jensen, M. (1996) Investigating the inconsistencies in college student responses to natural selection test questions. Electronic Journal of Science Education. 1(1). http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/settlage.html. Accessed Dec 2006.

  • Sexton, D. M. (2008). Student teachers negotiating identity, role, and agency. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(3), 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, M.-C., & Nieswandt, M. (2011). Science student role: evidence of social structural norms specific to school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 367–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    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(5), 510–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U. (1994). Counterpoint: belief, understanding and the teaching of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 591–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U. (2010a). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: I. Philosophical/epistemological issues. Science Education, 19, 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U. (2010b). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: II. Pedagogical issues. Science Education, 19, 539–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students’ explanations of biological phenomena: conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science Education, 85, 328–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). New York: State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S. (2008). From Mead to structural symbolic interactionism and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trani, R. (2004). I won’t teach evolution; it’s against my religion. The American Biology Teacher, 66(4), 419–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sickle, M., & Spector, B. (1996). Caring relationships in science classrooms: a symbolic interaction study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 433–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhey, S. D. (2005). The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes toward creationism and evolution. BioScience, 55(11), 996–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winslow, M. W., Staver, J. R., & Scharmann, L. C. (2011). Evolution and personal religious belief: Christian university biology-related majors’ search for reconciliation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1026–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank all of the participants who volunteered for this study in addition to Marvin Fawley for inviting me to conduct this study in his class. I acknowledge the support of Karen Fawley, Lisa Montplaisir, P.R. Balgopal, Paul Ode, and Louise Jennings for productive discussions regarding data analysis and coding. I thank Andrea Weinberg, Laura S. McMeeking, and two reviewers who provided very useful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1588, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA

    Meena M. Balgopal

Authors
  1. Meena M. Balgopal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meena M. Balgopal.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix A. Questions used in semi-structured interviews with research participants

Interviews 1 and 3

  1. 1.

    Please explain what answer you provided on the CINS diagnostic test.

  2. 2.

    How did you arrive at this answer?

  3. 3.

    Do you feel comfortable with your answer? Why or why not?

  4. 4.

    How has the act of interviewing influenced your understanding of natural selection?

  5. 5.

    How has the act of writing reflective essays influenced your understanding of natural selection?

  6. 6.

    Can you describe anything about the learning environment that has influenced your learning of natural selection?

Interview 2

Question A

Students were presented three boxes of insects (ladybird beetles, tiger moths, and red-spotted purples) that are highly variable within each population.

  1. 1.

    Can you describe to me what you see in each of these boxes?

  2. 2.

    How would your answer change if I tell you that all the individuals are of the same species and were part of the same population?

  3. 3.

    Could you please describe to me, to the best of your knowledge, what a species is?

  4. 4.

    Why do you think that these differences (variation) between individuals in a population are important for the evolutionary success of this species?

  5. 5.

    Are differences within a population limited to physical characteristics?

Question B

Students examined a data table of parasitic wasp fitness correlates (head capsule width, longevity, lifetime fecundity, and survivorship of offspring to adulthood).

  1. 1.

    Can you describe to me what these data mean?

  2. 2.

    These are real data from a study on wasps and these are fitness correlates. Can you tell me what fitness means?

  3. 3.

    How do these (presented data) measurable traits affect fitness?

  4. 4.

    [if the topic comes up, ask students to define viable and fertile and fecund].

Question C

Students were given blank paper and colored pencils or markers and were given the opportunity to use these materials to answer the following questions.

  1. 1.

    So far, we have discussed how individual animals may differ in a population, and that some traits may be associated with the individual animal’s fitness, but how do these differences arise?

  2. 2.

    When are these variations arising?

  3. 3.

    Are these variations being passed to offspring? If yes, how does this occur?

Question D

For students who are concurrently answering directed reflections.

  1. 1.

    Are you satisfied with your understanding of evolution? [If no, then ask why and what alternative ideas they think might make sense]

  2. 2.

    How has your understanding of evolution been affected by this course?

  3. 3.

    Has the activity of writing a weekly email reflection question influenced your understanding of evolution in any way at all?

Appendix B. Essay Prompts

  1. 1.

    In class the instructor described some of the thinking and interpretations of geologists and naturalists in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. Describe the importance of variability within organisms and how this concept may have contributed to the developing concept of natural selection.

  2. 2.

    The instructor stated in class that “survival of the fittest” uses circular logic. Please explain what he meant by that and describe how natural selection works.

  3. 3.

    Consider the following scenario:

    Chironomids are aquatic midges that live in water as eggs, larvae and pupae. Upon emergence as adults, they leave the water, are non-feeding for the most part and mate before dying soon afterwards. The midge larvae burrow in the mud and create tubes from which they emerge to feed. There are two benthic (lake) populations of midges in the genus Chironomus that are found adjacent to one another in the same deep lake environments. A group of scientists are studying these organisms and propose that they are different species based on physical body characteristics and feeding behavior. Chironomus plumosus is a filter feeder and feeds on diatoms, whereas Chironomus anthracinus is a deposit feeder and does not feed on diatoms. Imagine that this paper has been sent to you for review before a journal will accept it for publication. Please respond to the following issues:

    1. (a)

      What definition of species are the scientists using? Identify any other definitions that they should consider.

    2. (b)

      What process of speciation are the scientists considering has taken place? Explain this process.

    3. (c)

      The scientists believe that parapatric speciation has taken place, in which two species arose from the same ancestral species in adjacent geographical areas. Describe any studies that the scientists should conduct to test their hypothesis of speciation?

  4. 4.

    Do you think the modes of speciation in plants and animals are basically the same and should they be treated as such? Please explain your answer.

  5. 5.

    Can speciation be reversed after full reproductive isolation between two populations has evolved so that the two forms merge into a single species? Under what conditions is that probable or improbable? Please explain your answer (hint: think of RIMS).

  6. 6.

    Would you predict that the evolutionary potential of sexually reproducing organisms is greater than, less than, or equal to asexually reproducing organisms? Justify your answer.

  7. 7.

    Consider the following fictional scenario and answer the following questions:

    You are a researcher studying the emerald finches (an imaginary bird) off the coast of Florida on the small island of Tangerina. An exact date for the founding population (n=10) is known since there are diligent bird watchers in the area. Birders have also noted that finches disperse regularly between the mainland and the island. The tenth year after finch establishment on Tangerina you recorded a population of 50 birds and a high allele frequency for the long red tail trait (continental birds usually have short pink tails). When you return 20 years later, you a record a population of 90 birds and a much lower frequency of the red tail allele (so, more birds have short pink tails now).

    1. (a)

      Explain what types of selection may have been occurring in the island population of finches and distinguish between the different types during the 30 year period.

    2. (b)

      What would you expect to observe (in terms of tail type) in the Tangerina population of finches if feral cats wiped out the continental finch population along the coast? Very few birds (if any) are left for migration to Tangerina.

  8. 8.

    Please read the following passage about horse evolution and respond to the questions below. It might help if you diagram the relationship between the horse groups while reading since I have not supplied a figure.

    The evolution of horses has been well studied and described in evolution textbooks. It is only when we examine all of the intermediate groups that we see how general trends can explain the anatomy of modern horses; however, not all lineages followed general trends. Hyracotherium, browsing horses, roamed North America and Europe during the Eocene epoch. Their descendants evolved following noticeable trends: larger bodies, longer limbs, dental changes, elongated skull and diminished fourth toes. During the late Oligocene there was a branching off into Parahippus and Anchitherium, both of which were browsers. Parahippus continued to evolve longer faces, longer limps, a diminished fourth toe and dental changes, whereas Anchiterium retained the characters prior to the branching; however, its body size continued to evolve (got larger). During the early Miocene there were dramatic climatic changes that corresponded with pronounced anatomical changes (morphological changes in the skull and teeth were more suited for grazing) in descendants of the Parahippus known as Merychippus. The grazing descendants of Merychippus branched off further into two distinct groups: Nannipus (which were dwarfed in size and no longer extant) and Pliohippus (whose side toes became reduced in size and the central toe/hoof became enlarged and more suited for running; the chewing teeth became more complex and adapted for grazing). Pliohippus evolved into Dinohippus and then subsequently into our modern day Equus (the hoofed grazing horse).

    1. (a)

      Use one of the following pairs of words to describe the relationship between Hyracotherium and Equus (derived/ancestral; primitive/advanced; lower level/higher level; simple/complex). Indicate why you chose this pair of words.

    2. (b)

      There were two intermediate horses that did not evolve into our modern horse. Give at least two examples from the passage above of lineages that did not follow the general trend from Hyracotherium to Equus.

    3. (c)

      Propose some explanations for why these intermediate horses are not longer extant.

    4. (d)

      Many people describe evolution as progressive and directed. Please respond to this statement and justify your position.

  9. 9.

    Several national research science organizations, along with the National Research Council and the American Biology Teachers Association, made a joint statement a few years ago that biological evolution is a unifying theme in life sciences and should be taught as such. Respond to this statement reflecting on your own studies as an undergraduate. (Following are some questions that might guide your answer: explain why these scientists agree that evolution is a unifying theme, whether or not you agree and why and whether you feel that evolution has been a clear theme in your own studies.)

  10. 10.

    Your honest, thorough answers are appreciated:

    1. (a)

      How did the process of answering essay questions help you determine which concepts you knew well or were confused by? If you can, please give examples of concepts that you discovered you were confused by or that you understood well.

    2. (b)

      Before taking this course, what was your normal method of studying? How has your studying changed during this course in evolution? How has your learning (connecting new knowledge with prior knowledge) changed after writing regular essays?

    3. (c)

      Are you comfortable with your understanding of natural selection and evolution as the semester is ending? Do you feel that you have a better understanding of these concepts compared to your prior understanding at the beginning of the semester? If yes, what helped the most? If no, what would have helped you?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Balgopal, M.M. Learning and Intending to Teach Evolution: Concerns of Pre-service Biology Teachers. Res Sci Educ 44, 27–52 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9371-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9371-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation