Background Teleological reasoning is a cognitive bias purported to disrupt student ability to understand natural selection. Few studies have described pedagogical efforts to decrease student endorsement of teleological reasoning and measure the effects of this attenuation on the understanding and acceptance of evolution. This exploratory study examined the influence of explicit instructional activities directly challenging student endorsement of teleological explanations for evolutionary adaptations on their learning of natural selection over a semester-long undergraduate course in evolutionary medicine. In a convergent mixed methods design this study combined pre- and post-semester survey data (N = 83) on understanding natural selection, student endorsement of teleological reasoning, and acceptance of evolution, with thematic analysis of student reflective writing on their understanding and acceptance of natural selection and teleological reasoning. Results Student endorsement of teleological reasoning decreased and understanding and acceptance of natural selection increased during a course on human evolution with teleological intervention (p ≤ 0.0001), compared to a control course. Endorsement of teleological reasoning was predictive of understanding of natural selection prior to the semester. Thematic analysis revealed that prior to the course students were largely unaware of the concept of teleological reasoning and their own tendency to think about evolution in a purpose-directed way, but perceived attenuation of their own teleological reasoning by the end of the semester. Conclusions This exploratory study provides initial evidence that class activities to directly challenge student endorsement of unwarranted design teleological reasoning reduces the level and effects of teleological reasoning in an evolution course. Students were unaware of their high levels of endorsement of teleological reasoning upon entrance into the undergraduate human evolution course, which is consequential because teleological reasoning is a predicter of natural selection understanding. As a result of developed anti-teleological pedagogy, students had decreased unwarranted teleological reasoning and increased acceptance and understanding of natural selection over the course of the semester. The data presented show that students are receptive to explicit instructional challenges to their teleological reasoning and that attenuation of this bias is associated with gains in natural selection understanding and acceptance.

Background Creationist religious views have a large influence on the public’s views and learning related to evolution, especially human evolution. Creationism has been shown to reinforce students’ design teleological stance, which creates a challenging conceptual obstacle for learning evolution. The purpose of the current study was to determine if students with creationist views responded differently to education intended to directly challenge design teleological reasoning in the context of a human evolution course, compared to students with naturalist views. In a convergent mixed methods design this study combined pre- and post-semester quantitative survey data (N = 48) on student endorsement of teleological reasoning, acceptance of evolution (Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance), and understanding of natural selection (Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection), with a thematic analysis of student reflective writing on their understanding and acceptance of natural selection and teleological reasoning. Results This study found that students with creationist views had higher levels of design teleological reasoning and lower levels of acceptance of evolution at the beginning of the semester, compared to students with naturalist views (p < 0.01). Students with creationist views experienced significant (p < 0.01) improvements in teleological reasoning and acceptance of human evolution. While the changes in teleological reasoning, understanding and acceptance experienced by students with creationist views were similar in magnitude to changes in students with naturalist views, creationists never achieved levels of evolution understanding and acceptance seen in students with naturalist views. Multiple linear regression showed that student religiosity was a significant predictor of understanding of evolution, while having creationist views was a predictor of acceptance of evolution. Thematic analysis revealed that more students believed that religion and evolution are incompatible than compatible. However, more than one-third of students expressed openness to learning about evolution alongside their religious views. Conclusions Students with creationist views made gains on nearly all measures, but significantly underperformed their counterparts with natural views. For many students, religiosity and creationism challenge their thinking about evolution. This paper describes pedagogical practices to help students understand their own teleological reasoning and support students with creationist views who are learning about evolution.

No abstract

Creationist religious views have a large influence on the public’s views and learning related to evolution, especially human evolution. Creationism has been shown to reinforce students’ design teleological stance, which creates challenging conceptual obstacle for learning evolution. The purpose of the current study was to determine if students with creationist views responded differently to education intended to directly challenge design teleological reasoning in the context of a human evolution course, compared to students with naturalist views. In a convergent mixed-methods design this study combined pre- and post-semester survey data (N = 48) on student endorsement of teleological reasoning, acceptance of evolution, and understanding natural selection, with thematic analysis of student reflective writing on their understanding and acceptance of natural selection and teleological reasoning. This study found that students with creationist views had higher levels of design teleological reasoning and lower levels of acceptance of evolution at the beginning of the semester, compared to students with naturalist views (p<0.01). Students with creationist views experienced significant (p<0.01) improvements in teleological reasoning and acceptance of evolution. While the changes teleological reasoning, understanding and acceptance experienced by students with creationist views were similar in magnitude to changes in students with naturalist views, creationists never achieved levels of evolution understanding and acceptance seen in students with naturalist views. Thematic analysis revealed that a majority of students believed that religion and evolution are discordant. However, over one-third of students expressed openness to learning about evolution alongside their religious views. This paper describes pedagogical practices to help students understand their own teleological reasoning and support students with creationist views who are learning about evolution.

Background: Teleological reasoning is a cognitive bias purported to disrupt student ability to understand natural selection. Few studies have described pedagogical efforts to decrease student endorsement of teleological reasoning and measure the effects of this attenuation on the understanding and acceptance of evolution. This study examined the influence of explicit instructional activities directly challenging student endorsement of teleological explanations for evolutionary adaptations on their learning of natural selection over a semester-long undergraduate course in evolutionary medicine. In a convergent mixed-methods design this study combined pre- and post-semester survey data (N = 83) on understanding natural selection, student endorsement of teleological reasoning, and acceptance of evolution, with thematic analysis of student reflective writing on their understanding and acceptance of natural selection and teleological reasoning.Results: Student endorsement of teleological reasoning decreased and understanding and acceptance of natural selection increased during a course on human evolution with teleological intervention (p£0.0001), compared to a control course. Endorsement of teleological reasoning was predictive of understanding of natural selection prior to the semester. Thematic analysis revealed that students were largely unaware of the concept of teleological reasoning prior to the course, but perceived attenuation of their own teleological reasoning by the end of the semester. Conclusions: Students are unaware of their high levels of endorsement of teleological reasoning upon entrance into the undergraduate human evolution course, which is consequential because teleological reasoning is a predicter of natural selection understanding. We developed class activities to directly challenge student endorsement of unwarranted design teleological reasoning. As a result, students had decreased unwarranted teleological reasoning and increased acceptance and understanding of natural selection over the course of the semester. The data presented show that students are receptive to explicit instructional challenges to their teleological reasoning and that attenuation of this bias is associated with gains in natural selection understanding and acceptance.