Skip to main content

History and Philosophy of Science and the Teaching of Evolution: Students’ Conceptions and Explanations

Abstract

A large body of work in science education indicates that evolution is one of the least understood and accepted scientific theories. Although scholarship from the history and philosophy of science (HPS) has shed light on many conceptual and pedagogical issues in evolution education, HPS-informed studies of evolution education are also characterized by conceptual weaknesses. In this chapter, we critically review such studies and find that some work lacks historically accurate characterizations of student ideas (preconceptions and misconceptions). In addition, although several studies in the science education literature have drawn parallels between students’ conceptual change patterns and those from the history of science (HOS), we identify several issues that complicate the characterization of student ideas as “Lamarckian” or “Darwinian.” Finally, a review of the topic of explanation illustrates how the plurality of approaches employed in evolutionary biology is not reflected in evolution education scholarship or practice. This finding is particularly concerning given the recent shift in emphasis in science education standards to teaching content through practice-based tasks (e.g., explanation and argumentation). Overall, this chapter demonstrates that while HPS is of central importance to a deep understanding of evolution education, too often its contributions are poorly realized.

Keywords

  • Conceptual Change
  • Evolution Education
  • Evolutionary Explanation
  • Science Education Research
  • Antecedent Condition

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_13
  • Chapter length: 23 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   789.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-94-007-7654-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 13.1

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, Kampourakis and Zogza (2007), Gregory (2008, 2009), Evans (2008), Evans et al. (2010), Bizzo and El-Hani (2009), van Dijk (2009), van Dijk and Reydon (2010), Smith (2010), Tavares et al. (2010), González Galli and Meinardi (2011), and Zabel and Gropengiesser (2011).

  2. 2.

    But this principle could, in the same superficial manner, be attributed to Darwin as well (see Nehm and Ha 2011).

  3. 3.

    This is exactly the conclusion drawn by Kampourakis and Zogza (2007); most students hold teleological conceptions, although some students may also have conceptions similar to Lamarck’s.

  4. 4.

    Teaching genetics before evolution seems to facilitate understanding of evolution by secondary students (Kampourakis and Zogza 2009; see Kampourakis 2006 for how genetics and evolution concepts can be connected).

  5. 5.

    See, for example, Kitcher (1989), Salmon (1990), Okasha (2002, p. 49), Godfrey-Smith (2003, pp. 196–197), Woodward (2003), and Rosenberg (2005, p. 27).

  6. 6.

    The ultimate/proximate distinction as described in these studies could be actually used to teach students about the distinction between developmental and evolutionary explanations. Research in evolutionary developmental biology (evo devo) suggests that such a distinction is not valid and that evolutionary and developmental processes constantly interact. Thus, an interdisciplinary approach to the study of these phenomena is required (Love 2013). However, especially in secondary educational settings, it may be important to first help students distinguish between development and evolution, especially since they often confuse the two kinds of processes. Having understood what development and evolution are, they could then be taught about how developmental changes have an impact on evolution as well as how developmental processes themselves evolve (Love 2013; Arthur 2004; Minelli 2009).

  7. 7.

    Interestingly enough Gould noted that such a kind of narrative explanation was central in Darwin’s theorizing but his successors did not put emphasis on it in an attempt to base explanations on laws, which were considered more important for explanations than any narrative (Gould 2002, p. 1336).

  8. 8.

    There is some disagreement in the details (Reydon 2012; Forber 2012) but the nuances of these disagreements are not central to our point.

  9. 9.

    It is not necessary that the feature is currently being selected, but it may be so.

  10. 10.

    It is entirely legitimate to say that birds have wings for flying, as long as we refer to birds which do use their wings to fly and if it is clear that it is selection and not design which is doing the explaining. In terms of their structure, evolutionary explanations are teleological explanations (Lennox and Kampourakis 2013). The problem for evolution education is not teleology per se, but teleology based on design (we do not discuss Intelligent Design in this chapter; an excellent, recent analysis can be found in Brigandt 2013b). This is a difficult topic, pedagogically speaking. Although reference to history may not be necessary for philosophical analyses, it can be very useful for evolution instruction (Kampourakis 2013b).

  11. 11.

    These explanatory schemes may seem oversimplified but were considered appropriate given the age of students (14–15-year-olds).

References

  • Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56(10), 1891–1901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariew, A. (2003). Ernst Mayr’s ‘ultimate/proximate’ distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biology and Philosophy, 18(4), 553–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. (2004). Biased embryos and evolution. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battisti, B. T., Hanegan, N., Sudweeks, R., & Cates R. (2010). Using item response theory to conduct a distracter analysis on conceptual inventory of natural selection. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 845–868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J. (1994). The proximate/ultimate distinction in the multiple careers of Ernst Mayr. Biology and Philosophy, 9(3), 333–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beggrow, E. P., & Nehm, R. H. (2012). Students’ mental models of evolutionary causation: Natural selection and genetic drift. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(3), 429–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96(5), 808–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berti, A. E., Toneatti, L., & Rosati, V. (2010). Children’s conceptions about the origin of species: A study of Italian children’s conceptions with and without instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 506–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bizzo, N., & El-Hani, C. N. (2009). Darwin and Mendel: Evolution and genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 43(3), 108–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, P. J. (2003). Evolution: The history of an idea. (3rd edn.). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, P. J. (2005). Revisiting the eclipse of Darwinism. Journal of the History of Biology, 38, 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, P. J. (1983). The eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, R. N. (1990). Adaptation and Environment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I. (2013a) Explanation in biology: reduction, pluralism, and explanatory aims. Science & Education, 22(1), 69–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt, I. (2013b). Intelligent design and the nature of science: philosophical and pedagogical points. In K. Kampourakis (Ed), The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators.. Dordrecht: Springer, 205–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brumby, M. (1979). Problems in learning the concept of natural selection. Journal of Biological Education, 13(2), 119–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, R. W. (1995). The spirit of system: Lamarck and evolutionary biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 447–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, C. E. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(3), 551–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). Children’s understanding of inheritance. Journal of Biological Education, 19(4), 304–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corsi, P. (2005). Before Darwin: Transformist concepts in European natural history. Journal of the History of Biology, 38, 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corsi, P. (2001). Lamarck: Gene’se et enjeux du transformisme, 1770–1830. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deadman, J., & Kelly, P. P. (1978). What do secondary school boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics? Journal of Biological Education, 12(1), 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G. & Peebles, P. (1996). Patterns of conceptual change in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 407–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depew D. (2013) Conceptual change and the rhetoric of evolutionary theory: ‘Force talk’ as a case study and challenge for science pedagogy. In K. Kampourakis (Ed), The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endersby, J. (2009). Darwin on generation, pangenesis and sexual selection. In J. Hodge & G. Radick (Eds.), Cambridge companion to Darwin (2nd edn.) (pp. 73–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engels, E. M., & Glick, T. F. (2008). The reception of Charles Darwin in Europe (Vol. 2). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 263–294). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M., Spiegel, A., Gram, W., Frazier, B. F., Tare, M., Thompson, S. & Diamond, J. (2010). A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 326–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forber, P. (2005). On the explanatory roles of natural selection. Biology and Philosophy, 20(2), 329–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forber, P. (2010). Confirmation and explaining how possible. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 41, 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forber, P. (2012). Modeling scientific evidence: The challenge of specifying likelihoods. EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009, 1, 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forber, P., & Griffith, E. (2011). Historical reconstruction: Gaining epistemic access to the deep past. Philosophy & Theory in Biology, 3, e203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. The Journal of Philosophy, 71(1), 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauld, C. (1991). History of science, individual development and science teaching. Research in Science Education, 21, 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geraedts, C. L., & Boersma, K. T. (2006). Reinventing natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 843–870.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • González Galli, L. M., & Meinardi, E. N. (2011). The role of teleological thinking in learning the Darwinian model of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4,145–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2010). Reasoning up and down a food chain: Using an assessment framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge. Science Education, 94(2), 259–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, T. R. (2008). Evolution as fact, theory, and path. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 156–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiffenhagen, C., & Sherman, W. (2008). Kuhn and conceptual change: On the analogy between conceptual changes in science and children. Science & Education, 17, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, J., & Radick, G. (2009). Cambridge companion to Darwin (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Teaching evolution using a historically rich curriculum and paired problem solving instructional strategy. The American Biology Teacher, 59(4), 208–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (1992). Thinking about theories or thinking with theories: A classroom study with natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2006). The finches beaks: Introducing evolutionary concepts. Science Scope, 29(6), 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2013a) Mendel and the path to Genetics: Portraying science as a social process. Science & Education, 22(2), 293–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2013b) Teaching about adaptation: why evolutionary history matters. Science & Education, 22(2), 173–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis K. (Ed) (2013c), The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. Dordrecht: Springer.

    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(3–5), 393–422.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48(4), 507–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher & W. C. Salmon (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (vol. 13): Scientific explanation (pp. 410–505), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996) [1962]. The structure of scientific revolutions. (3rd edn.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laland, K. N., Sterelny, K., Odling-Smee, J., Hoppitt, W., & Uller, T. (2011). Cause and effect in biology revisited: Is Mayr’s proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful? Science, 334, 1512–1516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennox J.G. and Kampourakis K. (2013) Biological teleology: the need for history. In K. Kampourakis (Ed), The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A. T. (2000). Which way is up? Thomas S. Kuhn’s analogy to conceptual development in Childhood. Science & Education, 9, 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1986). Causation. In D. Lewis (Ed.), Philosophical papers, vol. II (pp. 159–213), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (1969). The bases of conflict in biological explanation. Journal of the History of Biology, 2(1), 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, A. C. (2013). Interdisciplinary lessons for the teaching of biology from the practice of evo-devo. Science & Education, 22(2), 255–278.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (2002). What evolution is. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli, A. (2009). Forms of becoming: The evolutionary biology of development. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G., & Skinner, J. D. (2003). On the origin, evolution and phylogeny of giraffes Giraffa camelopardalis. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa. 58(1), 51–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237–256.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., Beggrow, E. P., Opfer, J. E., & Ha, M. (2012). Reasoning about natural selection: Diagnosing contextual competency using the ACORNS Instrument. The American Biology Teacher, 74(2), 92–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., Kim, S. Y., & Sheppard, K. (2009). Academic preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching evolution: Biology versus non biology teachers. Science Education, 93, 1122–1146.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Opfer, J. E., Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: Knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 744–777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, C. & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Zoellner, B. (2005). Providing high school students with opportunities to reason like evolutionary biologists. The American Biology Teacher, 67(4), 214–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazza, R., Penteado, P. R., & Kavalco, K. F. (2010). Misconceptions about evolution in Brazilian freshmen students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(1), 107–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinou, L., Halkia, L., & Skordoulis, C. (2011). The inability of primary school to introduce children to the theory of biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(2), 275–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reydon, T. A. C. (2012). How-possibly explanations as genuine explanations and helpful heuristics: A comment on Forber. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 302–310.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C. (1990). Four decades of scientific explanation. In P. Kitcher & W. C. Salmon (Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. 13: Scientific Explanation (pp. 3–219), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1969). Explanation in the biological sciences. Journal of the History of Biology, 2(1), 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Settlage Jr, J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: a snapshot of the sense‐making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 449–457.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strevens, M. (2009). Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavares M. L., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Mortimer E. F. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 573–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk E. M., & Reydon, T. A. C. (2010). A conceptual analysis of evolutionary theory for teacher education. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 655–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou S. (2012) Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B.J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.). Second international handbook of science education (pp. 119–130). Dordrehct: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, C. K. (2009). The arguments in The Origin of Species. In J. Hodge & G. Radick (Eds.). Cambridge companion to Darwin (2nd edn.) (pp. 120–143). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winther, R. (2000). Darwin on variation and heredity. Journal of the History of Biology, 33, 425–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabel, J., & Gropengiesser, H. (2011). Learning progress in evolution theory: Climbing a ladder or roaming a landscape? Journal of Biological Education, 45(3), 143–149.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for thoughtful ideas about how to improve the manuscript, Liz P. Beggrow for helpful suggestions, and Minsu Ha for help with references.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kostas Kampourakis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kampourakis, K., Nehm, R.H. (2014). History and Philosophy of Science and the Teaching of Evolution: Students’ Conceptions and Explanations. In: Matthews, M. (eds) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_13

Download citation