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
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.
KeywordsEvolution Nature of science Self-efficacy Pre-service science teachers
- Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. International Journal of Organic Evolution, 56, 1891–1901.Google Scholar
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2006). Statement on the teaching of evolution. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf.
- 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
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
- Beardsley, P. M. (2004). Middle school student learning in evolution: Are current standards achievable? American Biology Teacher, 66(9), 604–612.Google Scholar
- Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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
- Clough, M. P. (1994). Diminish students’ resistance to biological evolution. American Biology Teacher, 56, 409–415.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Farber, P. (2003). Teaching evolution and the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 65(5), 347–354.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Jones, E. (1986). Translation of quantitative measures for use in cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 9, 324–327.Google Scholar
- Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 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
- McDonald, R. M. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Association of Biology Teachers. (2008). NABT statement on teaching evolution. Retrieved from http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=92.
- National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Science Teachers Association. (2003). NSTA position statement: The teaching of evolution. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx.
- 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
- Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika monograph supplement, No. 17.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- The Council of Higher Education. (2010). The higher education system in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: The Council of Higher Education.Google Scholar
- Van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2009). Teaching evolution with historical narratives. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 479–489.Google Scholar