A comparison study of human examples vs. non-human examples in an evolution lesson leads to differential impacts on student learning experiences in an introductory biology course

Abstract

Background Instructors can teach evolution using any number of species contexts. However, not all species contexts are equal, and taxa choice can alter both cognitive and affective elements of learning. This is particularly true when teaching evolution using human examples, a promising method for evolution instruction that nevertheless comes with unique challenges. In this study, we tested how an evolution lesson focused on a human example may impact students’ engagement, perceived content relevance, learning gains, and level of discomfort, when compared to the same lesson using a non-human mammal example. We use this isomorphic lesson and a pre-post study design administered in a split-section introductory biology classroom to isolate the importance of the species context. Results For two of the four measurements of interest, the effect of using human examples could not be understood without accounting for student background. For learning gains, students with greater pre-class content knowledge benefited more from the human examples, while those with low levels of knowledge benefited from the non-human example. For perceived relevance, students who were more accepting of human evolution indicated greater content relevance from the human example. Regardless of condition, students with lower evolution acceptance reported greater levels of discomfort with the lesson. Conclusions Our results illustrate the complexities of using human examples to teach evolution. While these examples were beneficial for many students, they resulted in worse outcomes for students that were less accepting of evolution and those who entered the course with less content knowledge. These findings demonstrate the need to consider diverse student backgrounds when establishing best practices for using human examples to teach evolution.

Influence of self‐assessment and conditional metaconceptual knowledge on students' self‐regulation of intuitive and scientific conceptions of evolution

“…Thus, the study lacks generalizability to populations with lower acceptance. However, students may be resistant to learning about evolution or feel uncomfortable in lessons due to a low acceptance of evolution, among others, because of a personal, familial, or community conflict with evolution (Barnes & Brownell, 2017; Grunspan et al, 2021; Sbeglia & Nehm, 2020). In the intervention, we focused on the cognitive aspects of learning (instead of emotional‐motivational factors such as acceptance of evolution) because (1) cognitive biases impact understanding in different domains of science, and thus dealing with them is of general relevance to science education (and not just evolution education) and (2) cognitive obstacles seem to be of higher relevance than emotional obstacles in evolution learning in Germany since acceptance of evolution is moderate to high.…”

Reconsidering the goals of evolution education: defining evolution and evolutionary literacy

“…The structural and functional similarities between humans and apes had been evident since the nineteenth century (e.g., Huxley 1863 ), and clues for our divergence from our closest relatives are evident in our chromosomes as human chromosome 2 corresponds to two distinct chromosomes in the apes (Yunis and Prakash 1982 ; see also Chapter 13 of Kampourakis 2018 , about how this might have occurred). However, teachers also need to know that human evolution is difficult for some students to accept, something that also affects their understanding of evolution (Grunspan, et al 2021 ). Furthermore, all the available evidence today from comparative anatomy, embryology, physiology, genomics, as well as from cell and molecular biology confirms all the main tenets of evolutionary theory (Coyne 2009 ).…”