Avoiding the Pitfall of Progress and Associated Perils of Evolutionary Education

Abstract

People reflexively see all change as implying inevitably increasing progress and complexity. This expected directionality is especially observed in students' views of living things, with some species envisioned as "higher" or more evolved. Students tend naturally to see all evolutionary change as adaptive, progressive, optimal, and teleological, with improvement achieved as needed or desired by organisms (if not as planned in advance). Following an extended outline of many interrelated ways, this basic yet unfortunately widespread and deep-seated misconception of evolutionary thinking ensnares students and hinders proper understanding of the actual pattern and process of evolution, a more useful pedagogical approach is presented. A strategy that involves eliciting preconceptions, engaging in numerous counterexamples, and continually reinforcing an alternative view is generally effective. This is best achieved by tackling the misconception of progress head-on, with an active learning model that forces students to come up with substitute explanations. Several examples of exercises and activities to combat the universal and automatically intuitive inclination toward teleological notions of progress are given, including analyses of paleontology, ecology, biochemistry, development, and systematics.

Teleology’s long shadow

“…Historically, biology educators have been chiefly concerned with the role of teleology in evolution education (for example, Bartov 1978Bartov , 1982 as an early benchmark and, more recently, Galli and Meinardi 2011;Werth 2012Werth , 2014; and others in this volume). Concerns highlight (at least) misleading images of progress, of inevitability, of directed (Lamarckian) variation, of "intelligent" design (as if mediated by a Creator), of functional optimality, and of privileged taxa or lineages.…”

“…As always, active learning and engaging students in their own conceptual development is optimal. Teachers should offer guided inquiries to help students recognize and contend with their own preconceptions (see Werth 2009Werth , 2012. Following Shermer's (2006) view, we need not wholly deny that evolution generates "design" and an impression of purpose.…”

Accepting, understanding, teaching, and learning (human) evolution: Obstacles and opportunities

“…Likewise the terminology used to present, explain, or even ask questions about evolution makes an important difference (Hermann, ; Werth, ). The multiple meanings of scientific terms are often implicit, subtle, and undefined (Nehm et al, ), and the use of “compelling but biologically imprecise” language to describe evolution has been criticized, with arguments that it contributes to widespread misunderstanding of evolution and may reinforce misconceptions based on teleology and essentialism (Galli and Meinardi, ; Werth, ; Legare et al, ). Experts may be able to effortlessly differentiate such multiple meanings, but research suggests that students usually cannot, and scientists rarely or explicitly distinguish these nuances for students even in a formal lecture—instructors often switch back and forth between every day and scientific term meanings and are not always contextually consistent in their use of biological language in the classroom, which may impede understanding of what teachers and students are intending to communicate to each other (Nehm et al, ; Rector et al, ).…”

“…Rector et al () suggest that instructors take time to model and distinguish multiple meanings of terms used in every day and scientific contexts, and Williams () suggests that one approach that could improve students’ understanding of the particular nature of some of the terminology used in science is using “scientific” before these terms when appropriate. Padian () suggests that we avoid the term “modern,” which connotes progressivism, and suggests using “living,” “extant,” or “present‐day,” as well as avoiding “primitive” and “advanced,” which carry value judgements, and instead use “basal” and “derived” (see also Mead, and Werth, for similar recommendations). He further notes that implying that natural selection is a cause rather than a mechanism of differential survival of individuals, including personification of natural selection as an actor consciously favoring a trait rather than explaining the circumstances by which a trait is favored, leads to confusion.…”

“…Students’ abilities to correctly explain evolution increased from 6% before instruction to 92% afterward, suggesting that such instruction targeted on misconceptions can have a marked effect on understanding evolution. Werth () provides a great list of misconceptions and how to help students correct them with a variety of specific classroom activities, noting that proper teaching often means “un‐teaching” a lot of misinformation.…”