Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 937–957 | Cite as

Modeling the Interrelationships Among Pre-service Science Teachers’ Understanding and Acceptance of Evolution, Their Views on Nature of Science and Self-Efficacy Beliefs Regarding Teaching Evolution

  • Gülsüm Akyol
  • Ceren Tekkaya
  • Semra Sungur
  • Anne Traynor


This study proposed a path model of relationships among understanding and acceptance of evolution, views on nature of science, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding teaching evolution. A total of 415 pre-service science teachers completed a series of self-report instruments for the specified purpose. After the estimation of scale scores using unidimensional IRT models, path analysis suggested that sophisticated views on NOS were associated with higher levels of both understanding and acceptance of evolution, and the higher level of understanding of evolution was related to the higher level of acceptance of evolution. Besides, higher levels of both understanding and acceptance of the theory and naïve views on NOS were found to be associated with stronger self-efficacy beliefs for teaching evolution effectively.


Evolution Nature of science Self-efficacy Pre-service science teachers 


  1. Aguillard, D. (1999). Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: A decade following Edwards v. Aguillard. American Biology Teacher, 61, 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akyol, G., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2010). The contribution of understandings of evolutionary theory and nature of science to pre-service science teachers: Acceptance of evolutionary theory. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1889–1893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. International Journal of Organic Evolution, 56, 1891–1901.Google Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2006). Statement on the teaching of evolution. Retrieved from
  5. 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(2), 189–209.Google Scholar
  6. Athanasiou, K., & Papadopoulou, P. (2011). Conceptual ecology of the evolution acceptance among greek education students: knowledge, religious practices and social influences. International Journal of Science Education. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.586072.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  9. Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beardsley, P. M. (2004). Middle school student learning in evolution: Are current standards achievable? American Biology Teacher, 66(9), 604–612.Google Scholar
  11. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in pre-service elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics Journal, 104, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. BouJaoude, S., Asghar, A., Wiles, J. R., Jaber, L., Sarieddine, D., & Alters, B. (2011). Biology professors’ and teachers’ positions regarding biological evolution and evolution education in a Middle Eastern society. International Journal of Science Education, 33(7), 979–1000. doi: 10(1080/09500693),2010,489124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clough, M. P. (1994). Diminish students’ resistance to biological evolution. American Biology Teacher, 56, 409–415.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., & Valez, C. N. (1990). Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations causal models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dagher, Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89, 378–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deniz, H., Donelly, 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(4), 420–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: a preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 694–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans, E. M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 217–266.Google Scholar
  22. Farber, P. (2003). Teaching evolution and the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 65(5), 347–354.Google Scholar
  23. Finley, F. N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of important and difficult science content. Science Education, 66(4), 531–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graf, D., & Soran, H. (2011). Evolutionstheorie-Akzeptanz und Vermittlung im europäischen Vergleich. Einstellung und Wissen von Lehramtstudierenden zur Evolution-ein Vergleich zwischen Deutschland und der Türkei. In Graf, D. (Ed.), Tagungsband Einstellung und Wissen zu Evolution und Wissenschaft in Europa (pp. 141–161). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 156–175. doi: 10.1007/S12052-009-0128-1.
  26. Griffith, J. A., & Brem, S. K. (2004). Teaching evolutionary biology: Pressures, stress, and coping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 791–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79, 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, R. L. (1985). The acceptance of evolutionary theory by biology majors in colleges of the west north central states (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, R. L., & Peeples, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in college: Student acceptance of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 49, 93–98.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, E. (1986). Translation of quantitative measures for use in cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 9, 324–327.Google Scholar
  31. Kim, S. Y., & Nehm, R. H. (2011). A cross-cultural comparison of Korean and American science teachers’ views of evolution and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 197–227. doi: 10.1080/09500690903563819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lombrozo, T., Thanukos, A., & Weisberg, M. (2008). The importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(3), 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principle elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. McDonald, R. M. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Meir, E., Perry, J., Herron, J. C., & Kingsolver, J. (2007). College students’ misconceptions about evolutionary trees. American Biology Teacher, 69, 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore, R. (2007). The differing perceptions of teachers and students regarding teachers’ emphasis on evolution in high school biology classrooms. The American Biology Teacher, 69(5), 268–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moore, R., & Kraemer, K. (2005). The teaching of evolution and creationism in Minnesota. The American Biology Teacher, 67, 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  40. Nadelson, L. S., & Nadelson, S. (2010). K-8 educators perceptions and preparedness for teaching evolution topics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 843–858. doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9171-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Association of Biology Teachers. (2008). NABT statement on teaching evolution. Retrieved from
  43. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. National Science Teachers Association. (2003). NSTA position statement: The teaching of evolution. Retrieved from
  45. Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for teaching of evolution in schools. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 699–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nickels, M. K., Nelson, C. E., & Beard, J. (1996). Better biology teaching by emphasizing evolution and the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 58(6), 332–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peker, D., Comert, G. G., & Kence, A. (2010). Three decades of anti-evolution campaign and its results: Turkish undergraduates’ acceptance and understanding of the biological evolution theory. Science & Education, 19, 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rice, D. C., & Kaya, S. (2010). Exploring relations among preservice elementary teachers’ ideas about evolution, understanding of relevant science concepts, and college science coursework. Research in Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11165-010-9193-2.Google Scholar
  49. Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. H. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1069–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rutledge, M. L. (1996). Indiana high school biology teachers and evolutionary theory: Acceptance and understanding. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest dissertations and theses database. (UMI No. 9632834).Google Scholar
  52. Rutledge, M. L., & Mitchell, M. A. (2002). High school biology teachers’ knowledge structure, acceptance and teaching of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 64(1), 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rutledge, M. L., & Sadler, K. C. (2007). Reliability of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution (MATE) instrument with university students. The American Biology Teacher, 69, 332–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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(1), 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of science and high school biology teachers: Critical relationships. American Biology Teacher, 62, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika monograph supplement, No. 17.Google Scholar
  57. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2006). The development and validation of the Nature of Science as Argument Questionnaire (NSAAQ). Paper presented at the annual international conference of the national association of research in science teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  58. Sanders, M., & Ngxola, N. (2009). Addressing teachers’ concerns about teaching evolution. Journal of Biological Education, 43(3), 121–128. doi: 10(1080/00219266),2009,9656166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Savalei, V., & Bentler, P. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling. In R. Grover & M. Vriens (Eds.), The handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances (pp. 330–364). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Scharmann, L. C., & Harris, W. M. (1991). Teaching evolution: Understanding, concerns, and instructional approaches. Paper presented at the Annual international conference of the national association of research in science teaching (NARST), Lake Geneva, WI.Google Scholar
  61. Scharmann, L. C., & Harris, W. M. (1992). Teaching evolution: understanding and applying the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shankar, G., & Skoog, G. (1993). Emphasis given evolution and creationism by Texas high school biology teachers. Science Education, 77, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 83, 493–509.Google Scholar
  66. Southerland, S. A., Sinatra, G. M., & Matthews, M. (2001). Belief, knowledge, and science education. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 325–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tekkaya, C., Akyol, G., & Sungur, S. (2010). Evrim teorisini kabul etmeye etki eden faktörler: Evrim bilgisinin ve bilimsel bilginin doğasi ile ilgili görüşlerin incelenmesi. Poster presented at the meeting of IX. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, İzmir, Turkey.Google Scholar
  68. Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Ozkan, O. (2004). Turkish pre-service science teachers’ understanding of science, and their confidence in teaching science. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. The Council of Higher Education. (2010). The higher education system in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: The Council of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  70. 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, 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van Dijk, E. M. (2009). Teachers’ views on understanding evolutionary theory: A PCK study in the framework of the ERTE-model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2009). Teaching evolution with historical narratives. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 479–489.Google Scholar
  73. Van Dijk, E. M., & Reydon, T. A. C. (2010). A conceptual analysis of evolutionary theory for teacher education. Science & Education, 19, 655–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gülsüm Akyol
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ceren Tekkaya
    • 1
  • Semra Sungur
    • 1
  • Anne Traynor
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary EducationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Aksaray UniversityAksarayTurkey
  3. 3.College of Education, Measurement and Quantitative Methods ProgramMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations