Research in Science Education

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 34–41 | Cite as

Student understandings of natural selection

  • Lynda J. Creedy


This paper examines the continuation of a study investigating senior secondary students' understanding of concepts in biology. In this study, year 11 student understandings of natural selection were examined by questionnaire using different question formats. The SOLO taxonomy of Biggs and Collis (1982) was used as the theoretical framework with which the quality of student learning was assessed.

This paper puts forward the usefulness of the SOLO taxonomy in assessing student understanding in biology in general and in examining student understanding of the concept of natural selection in particular. The paper goes on to examine the implications of these results and raises issues which have applicability to criterion-based assessment in secondary science.


Natural Selection Student Learning Student Understanding Secondary Student Question Format 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Biggs, J. & Collis, K.F. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1986).Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Research Series No 165. Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.Google Scholar
  3. Brumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students.Science Education, 68(4), 493–503.Google Scholar
  4. Collis, K.F. & Biggs, J. (1989). A school-based approach to setting and evaluating science curriculum objectives: SOLO and school science.The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 35(4), 15–25.Google Scholar
  5. Collis, K.F. & Davey, H.A. (1986). A technique for evaluating skills in high school science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23(7), 651–663.Google Scholar
  6. Creedy, L. J. (1992). The effect of question format in revealing the quality of student learning of some biological concepts.Research in Science Education, 22, 406–407.Google Scholar
  7. Cureton, E. E. (1965). Reliability and validity: Basic assumptions and experimental designs.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 327–346.Google Scholar
  8. Lawson, A. E., & Thompson, L. D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(9), 733–746.Google Scholar
  9. Levins, L. A. (1992). Students' understanding of concepts related to evaporation.Research in Science Education, 22, 263–272.Google Scholar
  10. Pallett, R. & Rataj, J. (1992). Criterion based assessment and school science. Part 2: Choosing areas of study.The Australian Science Teacher's Journal, 38(1), 54–56.Google Scholar
  11. Romberg, T. A., Jurdak, M. E., Collis, K. F., & Buchanan, A. E. (1982).Construct validity of a set of mathematical superitems. A report of the NIE/ECS Item Development Project. Wisconsin Centre for Education Research.Google Scholar
  12. Stanbridge, B. (1990). Making science more accessible to students: a curriculum based on cognitive criteria.The Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 36(2), 7–14.Google Scholar
  13. Watson, J.M. & Mulligan, J. (1990). Mapping solutions to an early multiplication word problem.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2(2), 29–44.Google Scholar
  14. Wilson, M. (1989). A comparison of deterministic and probabilistic approaches to measuring learning structures.Australian Journal of Education, 33(2), 127–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynda J. Creedy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science, Technology and Mathematics EducationUniversity of New EnglandArmidale

Personalised recommendations