Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports data from a study aiming to explore secondary students’ preconceptions and explanations about evolutionary processes. Students may exhibit both alternative and scientifically acceptable conceptions and bring different ones into play in response to different problem contexts. Hence, the examination of their explanations before instruction within different problem contexts is expected to highlight the concepts that instruction should put more emphasis on. To achieve this, an open-ended questionnaire in conjunction with semi-structured interviews was used to allow students to express their own views on issues related to evolution. Students’ explanations highlighted their lack of knowledge of important evolutionary concepts such as common descent and natural selection. In addition, many students explained the origin of traits as the result of evolution through need via purposeful change or as carefully designed adaptations. Rather than evolutionary, final causes formed the basis for the majority of students’ explanations. In many cases students provided different explanations for the same process to tasks with different content. It seems that the structure and the content of the task may have an effect on the explanations that students provide. Implications for evolution education are discussed and a minimal explanatory framework for evolution is suggested.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams E, Southerland S, Cummins C (2001) The How’s and Why’s of biological change: how learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning. Int J Sci Educ 23:1271–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariew A (1998) Are probabilities necessary for evolutionary explanations? Biol Philos 13:245–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariew A (2002) Platonic and Aristotelian roots of teleological arguments in cosmology and biology. In: Ariew A, Cummins R, Perlman M (eds) Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 7–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariew A (2003) Ernst Mayr’s ‘Ultimate/Proximate’ distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biol Philos 18:553–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balashov Y, Rosenberg A (eds) (2002) Philosophy of science: Contemporary readings. Routledge, London and New York

  • Banet E, Ayuso GE (2003) Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. Int J Sci Educ 25(3):373–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty J (1994) The proximate/ultimate distinction in the multiple careers of Ernst Mayr. Biol Philos 9:333–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beatty J (1995) The evolutionary contingency thesis. In: Wolters G, Lennox JG (eds) Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences, the second Pittsburgh–Konstanz colloquium in the philosophy of science, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 45–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckner M (1969) Function and teleology. J Hist Biol 2(1):151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop BA, Anderson CW (1990) Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. J Res Sci Teach 27:415–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon RN (1981) Biological teleology: questions and explanations. Stud Hist Philos Sci 12(2):91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough EE, Wood-Robinson C (1985) How secondary students interpret instances of biological adaptation. J Biol Education 19:125–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, 1st edn. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Demastes SS, Good RG, Peebles P (1996) Patterns of conceptual change in evolution. J Res Sci Teaching 33(4):407–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans EM (2001) Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychol 42:217–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forber P (2005) On the explanatory roles of natural selection. Biol Philos 20:329–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (1974) Explanation and scientific understanding. J Philos 71(1):5–19. Reprinted in Pitt (1988),188–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2003) Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (2000) [1989] Wonderful life: the Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Vintage, London

  • Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts and London, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel C, Oppenheim P (1948) Studies in the logic of explanation. Philos Sci 15:135–175. Reprinted in Pitt (1988), 9–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki K, Hatano G (2004) Vitalistic causality in young children’s naive biology. Trends Cognit Sci 8(8):356–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MS, Finley FN (1996) ‘Changes in Students’ understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. J Res Sci Teaching 33(8):879–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre MP (1992) Thinking about theories or thinking with theories: a classroom study with natural selection. Int J Sci Educ 14(1):51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis K, Zogza V (2006) ‘Students’ preconceptions about evolution: How accurate is the characterization as “Lamarckian” when considering the history of evolutionary thought? Sci & Educ (online first article)

  • Kampourakis K (2006) ‘The Finches’ beaks: introducing evolutionary concepts. Sci Scope 29(6):14–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, FC (1992) The origins of an autonomous biology. In: Gunnar MR, Maratsos M (eds) Modularity and constraints in language and cognition. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, vol. 25. Erlbaum, pp 103–138

  • Kelemen D, DiYanni C (2005) Intuitions about origins: purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. J Cognition Develop 6(1):3–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen D (1999) The scope of teleological thinking in pre-school children. Cognition 70:241–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen D (2004a) Function, goals and intentions: children’s teleological reasoning about objects. Trends Cogn Sci 3(12):461–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen D (2004b) Are children ‘‘Intuitive Theists’’?: reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychol Sci 15(5):295–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P (1981) Explanatory unification. Philos Sci 48(4):507–531. Reprinted in Pitt (1988), 167–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P (1989) Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In: Kitcher P, Salmon WC (eds) Scientific explanation. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 410–505. Reprinted in Balashov, Rosenberg, (2002), 71–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennox JG (1992a) Philosophy of biology. In: Salmon M, Earman J, Glymour C, Lennox J, Machamer P, McGuire J, Norton J, Salmon W, and K Schaffner, KF (eds) Introduction to the philosophy of science. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp 269–309

  • Lennox JG (1992b) Teleology. In: Keller EF, Lloyd EA (eds) Keywords in evolutionary biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts and London, England, pp 324–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennox JG (1993) Darwin was a teleologist. Biol & Philos 8:409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennox JG (2001) Aristotle’s philosophy of biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D (1986) Causal explanation. In: Lewis D (ed) Philosophical papers, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 214–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (1969) The bases of conflict in biological explanation. J Hist Biol 2(1):35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombrozo T, Carey S (2006) Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cognition 99:167–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science 134:1501–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okasha S (2002) Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer DH (1999) Exploring the link between students’ scientific and nonscientific conceptions. Sci Educ 83(6):639–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passmore C, Stewart J (2002) A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. J Res Sci Teaching 39(3):185–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt J (ed) (1988) Theories of explanation. Oxford University Press, New York

  • Rosenberg A (2005) Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon WC (1984) Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton University Press. Chapters 5 and 6 reprinted in Pitt (1988), pp 79–118

  • Salmon WC (1990) Scientific explanation: causation and unification. Critica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía 22(66):3–21. Reprinted in Balashov & Rosenberg (2002), pp 92–105

  • Samarapungavan A, Wiers RW (1997) Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: a study of explanatory coherence. Cogn Sci 21(2):147–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scriven M (1959) Explanation and prediction in evolutionary theory. Science 130:477–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scriven M (1962) Explanations, predictions, and laws. In: Feigl H, Maxwell G (eds) Scientific explanation, space, and time, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol 3. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 170–230. Reprinted in Pitt (1988), 51–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven M (1969) Explanation in biological sciences. J Hist Biol 2(1):187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settlage J (1994) Conceptions of natural selection: a snapshot of the sense-making process. J Res Sci Teaching 31(5):449–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strevens M (2004) The causal and unification accounts of explanation unified—causally. Noûs 38:154–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Strevens M (2005) ‘Scientific Explanation’, in Macmillan Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2nd ed.)

  • Waters KC (2003) The arguments in the origin of species. In: Hodge J, Radick G (eds) Cambridge companion to Darwin. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 116–139

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J (2003) Scientific Explanation. In Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

  • Wright L (1973) Functions. Philos Rev 82(2):139–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geitonas School, P.O. Box 74128, Vari Attikis, Athens, 16602, Greece

    Kostas Kampourakis

  2. Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras, Rion, Patras, 26500, Greece

    Vasso Zogza

Authors
  1. Kostas Kampourakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vasso Zogza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kostas Kampourakis.

Appendix

Appendix

The open-ended questionnaire included the following five tasks.

1.1 Task 1

We know that the wolves, the dogs and the foxes are different species with their own special features. However, these species exhibit many morphological and physiological similarities. How could these be explained?

1.2 Task 2

The giraffe, as we now know it, is an animal with a remarkably long neck. This feature allows the giraffe to browse on the leaves from the trees, when there is no adequate food on the ground. Nowadays we know that giraffes did not always possess this feature but used to have a shorter neck. Can you explain how the neck of the giraffe was lengthened?

1.3 Task 3

Many animals exhibit the same color with their environment (e.g. the white polar bear) or look alike different species (e.g. leaf-like insects) that distracts their predators or preys. Can you explain how these particular animals have developed these features?

1.4 Task 4

Beetles may live on trees and feed on their leaves. Several years ago, both green and brown beetles could be found in equal proportions a forest. However, birds could spot the green beetles more easily than the brown ones on the ground or on the trunks. Nowadays, if we attempt to estimate the proportions of green and brown beetles, we will mostly find brown ones. Can you explain how the proportion of the beetles living in the forest has changed?

1.5 Task 5

So far you have studied bacteria, protists, fungi, plants and animals in the cellular level. Despite several differences, you have seen that all organisms exhibit some major features: (a) all organisms are built up by cells, and (b) all cells contain DNA, ribosomes and cellular membrane. Can you provide an explanation for the origin of these similarities?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kampourakis, K., Zogza, V. Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Sci & Educ 17, 27–47 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9075-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9075-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation