Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Participating in an Object-Based Learning Project to Support the Teaching and Learning of Biological Evolution: A Case Study at the Grant Museum of Zoology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evolution Education Re-considered

Abstract

Biological evolution can be regarded as a vast continuum of inter-related ideas important to understanding biology. It is known that teaching such a complex topic is challenging for teachers. This research looks at how the use of objects through the participation in an object-based learning project supports pre-service science teachers in both their subject knowledge and pedagogic knowledge of biological evolution. A series of workshops were designed at the Grant Museum of Zoology in London, where students were given the opportunity to handle and touch real specimens. Data from project shows an increase in pre-service teachers’ knowledge of biological evolution after engagement with the project, with confidence indicators showing changes in their perceptions of the certainty of their knowledge. Involvement in the project encouraged them to make important observations, ask questions and engage in discussions that questioned their understanding of biological evolution. In addition, participants identified and valued a range of pedagogies associated with object-based learning that could be applied either within the informal museum setting or the more formal classroom setting. The research ALSO highlights the potential importance of a ‘knowledgeable driver’ for these rich discussions and suggests the role that such a historical and enchanting place may play in these outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, D. A., & Smith, S. D. (2013). Tree thinking: An introduction to phylogenetic biology. Roberts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, D. A., Smith, S. D., & Donovan, S. S. (2005). The tree-thinking challenge. Science, 310(5750), 979–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke da Silva, K. (2012). Evolution-centered teaching of biology. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 13, 363–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, H. J. (2011). Object-based learning in higher education: The pedagogical power of museums. In International Committee for University Museums and Collections (UMAC) Proceedings, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, H. J., & Hannan, L. (Eds.). (2015). Engaging the senses: Object-based learning in higher education. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Critchley, H. (2008). Emotional touch: A neuroscientific overview. In H. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 61–71). Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P., & Lister, A. M. (2001). Palaeoloxodon cypriotes, the dwarf elephant of Cyprus: Size and scaling comparisons with P. falconeri (Sicily-Malta) and mainland P. antiquus. In World of elephants conference proceedings (pp. 479–480).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P., & Nicholl, J. (2017). Using object-based learning to understand animal evolution. In M. Mueller (Ed.), Animals and science education: Ethics, curriculum and pedagogy (Vol. 2, p 145).

    Google Scholar 

  • DNA to Darwin. (2017). DNA to Darwin: student guide. http://www.dnadarwin.org/casestudies/INTRO/FILES/IntroSG1.0.pdf. Last accessed (DATE).

  • Diamond, J., & Evans, E. M. (2007). Museums teach evolution. Evolution, 61(6), 1500–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominici, S., & Cioppi, E. (2012) Evolutionary theory and the florence paleontological collections. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(1), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchetti, E. M. (2012). Biological evolution on display: An approach to evolutionary issues through a museum. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(1), 104–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2008). The cognitive and neural correlates of “tactile consciousness”: A multisensory perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 370–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gay, H. (2012). Talking about evolution in natural history museums. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(1), 101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giachritsis, C. (2008). The use of haptic interfaces in haptic research. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 75–90). Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauf, P., & Paulus, M. (2011). Experience matters: 11-month-old infants can learn to use material information to predict the weight of novel objects. Infant Behavior and Development, 34(3), 467–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in students’ understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of research in science teaching, 33(8), 879–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2014). Understanding evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2007). Students’ preconceptions about evolution: How accurate is the characterization as “Lamarckian” when considering the history of evolutionary thought? Science & Education, 16(3), 393–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science & Education, 17(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2009). Preliminary evolutionary explanations: A basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Science & Education, 18(10), 1313–1340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, G., (2000) Dream spaces: Memory and the museum. London Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M., & Jones, G. V. (2009). Affect and alexithymia determine choice among valued objects. Emotion, 9, 340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2002). Qualitative content analysis—Research instrument or mode of interpretation? In M. Kiegelmann (Ed.), The role of the researcher in qualitative psychology (pp. 139–148). Tübingen: Verlag Ingeborg Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Open Access Repository. http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/39517/ssoar-2014-mayring-Qualitative_content_analysis_theoretical_foundation.pdf.

  • McAlpine, J. (2002). Loan star. Museums Journal, 102(1), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience, 57(3), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pye, E. (Ed.). (2016). The power of touch: Handling objects in museum and heritage context. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sa’adah, S., Hidayat, T., & Sudargo, F. (2017). Undergraduate students’ initial ability in understanding phylogenetic tree. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 824(1), 012040 (IOP Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M., & Ngxola, N. (2009). Addressing teachers’ concerns about teaching evolution. Journal of biological education, 43(3), 121–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer Science (2017). How to build a cladogram. http://sawyerscience.com/pdfs/5-Unit3Evolution/building_a_cladogram_practice.pdf. Last accessed (DATE).

  • Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 170–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, H. M., Araújo, E. S. N. N. D., Gibram, D. E., & Carvalho, G. S. D. (2014). Conceptual change about evolution and origins of life throughout an undergraduate course of Biological Sciences. In Proceedings of INTCESS 14-international conference on education and social science proceedings (pp. 1249–1258). INTCESS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U. (2010). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: II. Pedagogical issues. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 539–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solway, R., Camic, P. M., Thomson, L. J., & Chatterjee, H. J. (2015). Material objects and psychological theory: A conceptual literature review. Arts & Health, 8, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, H. (1864). The principles of biology. Boston: Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler, L. H., & Doherty, J. H. (2009). Assessment of the teaching of evolution by natural selection through a hands-on simulation. Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology, 6, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • STEM. (2016). https://www.stem.org.uk/cpd/ondemand/226530/developing-subject-understanding-evolution-year-6. Last accessed (DATE).

  • Taber, K. S. (2017). Representing evolution in science education: The challenge of teaching about natural selection. In Science education: A global perspective (pp. 71–96). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative inquiry, 17(6), 511–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Were, G. (2008). Out of touch? Digital technologies, ethnographic objects and sensory orders. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 127–131). Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, T. B., & Marek, E. A. (2015). A study identifying biological evolution-related misconceptions held by prebiology high school students. Creative Education, 6(08), 811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCL Institute of Education, London, England, UK

    Jo Nicholl

  2. Queen’s College, London, England, UK

    Paul Davies

Authors
  1. Jo Nicholl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jo Nicholl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IPN - Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education at Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

    Ute Harms

  2. Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK

    Michael J. Reiss

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nicholl, J., Davies, P. (2019). Participating in an Object-Based Learning Project to Support the Teaching and Learning of Biological Evolution: A Case Study at the Grant Museum of Zoology. In: Harms, U., Reiss, M. (eds) Evolution Education Re-considered. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14697-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14698-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation