Beyond the Adaptationist Legacy: Updating Our Teaching to Include a Diversity of Evolutionary Mechanisms

Abstract

A paradigm shift away from viewing evolution primarily in terms of adaptation – the “adaptationist programme” of Gould and Lewontin – began in evolutionary research more than 35 years ago, but that shift has yet to occur within evolutionary education research or within teaching standards. We review three instruments that can help education researchers and educators undertake this paradigm shift. The instruments assess how biology undergraduates understand three evolutionary processes other than natural selection: genetic drift, dominance relationships among allelic pairs, and evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). Testing with these instruments reveals that students often explain a diversity of evolutionary mechanisms incorrectly by invoking misconceptions about natural selection. We propose that increasing the emphasis on teaching evolutionary processes other than natural selection could result in a better understanding of natural selection and a better understanding of all evolutionary processes. Finally, we propose two strategies for accomplishing this goal, interleaving natural selection with other evolutionary processes and the development of bridging analogies to describe evolutionary concepts.

Observing populations and testing predictions about genetic drift in a computer simulation improves college students’ conceptual understanding

“…2b), indicating that they are in Stage 2. Because it is so challenging for students to recognize that evolution encompasses more than natural selection (Price and Perez 2016), the fact that the students in the control courses are making this change is noteworthy.…”

“…Our interpretation is that, when students, such as those in the control courses, are moving through Stage 2, they are actually expanding what they know about evolution by recognizing that many different mechanisms of evolution exist. This realization in itself is quite challenging (Price and Perez 2016). Thus, there is misalignment between what students are learning and what instructors intend to be teaching.…”

Testing validity inferences for Genetic Drift Inventory scores using Rasch modeling and item order analyses

“…The scientific community recognizes both adaptive and nonadaptive causes of evolutionary change (reviewed in Beggrow and Nehm 2012;Masel 2012). While standards and textbooks vary in the extent to which they address non-adaptive evolutionary processes, genetic drift is recognized foremost among the various-non adaptive evolutionary factors Price and Perez 2016). Genetic drift is included in college textbooks for biology majors , is a recommended topic in undergraduate biology curricula, and is also taught in advanced placement (AP) Biology (reviewed in Price and Perez 2016;The College Board 2015).…”

“…While standards and textbooks vary in the extent to which they address non-adaptive evolutionary processes, genetic drift is recognized foremost among the various-non adaptive evolutionary factors Price and Perez 2016). Genetic drift is included in college textbooks for biology majors , is a recommended topic in undergraduate biology curricula, and is also taught in advanced placement (AP) Biology (reviewed in Price and Perez 2016;The College Board 2015). International Baccalaureate (IB) Biology (a popular alternative to AP biology), however, fails to mention non-adaptive mechanisms for evolution (International Baccalaureate Organization 2014).…”

“…Empirical studies on teaching, learning, and assessing non-adaptive contributors to evolution have been scarce in a vast body of evolution education research dominated by studies on natural selection (Andrews et al 2012;Beggrow and Nehm 2012;Price and Perez 2016). How students conceptualize genetic drift and how genetic drift fits into the broader conceptual ecology of evolutionary thought are two areas that have only recently begun to be explored.…”