Changes in students' understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies

Abstract

This study assessed students' learning of evolution by natural selection within four different sections of an introductory biology course. Each section used a different combination of curricular materials (either traditional or historically rich materials) and instruction (either paired problem solving or traditional lecture). Students in the study completed pre-and postintervention evolution tests. Students' responses were analyzed to create variables for both correct and alternative conceptions of evolution. Pretest and posttest data were used to create difference scores that were compared both within and between teaching sections. Pre-to-post gains were expected in the correct (Darwinian Conception) scores, while pre-to-post losses were expected in the Alternative Conception scores. Also, students in the experimental sections were expected to perform better than those in the traditional sections. Pretest-to-posttest differences within each section showed gains in correct conceptions but few reductions in alternative conceptions. Comparisons between sections support the use of the paired problem-solving instructional strategy in conjunction with the historically rich curriculum.

Addressing Undergraduate Student Misconceptions about Natural Selection with an Interactive Simulated Laboratory

“…Much of this work has focused on confusions about the process of natural selection (e.g., Bishop and Anderson 1990;Settlage 1994;Jensen and Finley 1996;Nehm and Reilly 2007). These, and other studies, have identified some widespread misconceptions about principles of natural selection (Table 1).…”

“…But to the extent that this result is real, it indicates that our software does not perform as well in this aspect as we had hoped. Some studies have had greater success at increasing student use of principles of natural selection in their explanations (e.g., Jensen and Finley 1996;Robbins and Roy 2007). These studies used instructional methods that explicitly compared the principles of natural selection to misconceptions to better improve student understanding.…”

“…These confusions can inhibit understanding of related biological concepts (Greene 1990;Jensen and Finley 1996) and likely limit students′ ability to explain and comprehend other relevant phenomena such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, impacts of climate change, or biological engineering.…”

Using the logical basis of phylogenetics as the framework for teaching biology

“…The results of deficient learning are the permanence and diffusion of a great roll of problematic issues about evolution and correlated subjects (for examples, see Bishop & Anderson, 1990;Aleijandre, 1994;Settlage, 1994;Zuzovsky, 1994;Demastes et al, 1995Demastes et al, , 1996Jensen & Finley, 1996;Ferrari & Chi, 1998;Thomas, 2000;Anderson et al, 2002;and Passmore & Stewart, 2002). Concepts such as temporal dimension and its consequences to the evolutionary process are commonly misinterpreted, as well as the genealogical relationships among men and other animals, whether humans originated through purely natural processes from other forms of life, and the difference between evolutionary changes, evolutionary novelties and progress.…”

A Study Identifying Biological Evolution-Related Misconceptions Held by Prebiology High School Students

“…Numerous studies conducted in recent decades identify multiple biological evolution-related misconceptions held by select groups of students. These groups include: secondary students (Beardsley, 2004;Bizzo, 1994;Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985;Creedy, 1993;Deadman & Kelly, 1978;Demastes et al, 1995;Evans, 2000;Geraedts & Boersma, 2006;Halldén, 1988;Jiménez-Aleixandre, 1992;Jungwirth, 1975;Kampourakis & Zogza, 2007, 2008Lawson & Thompson, 1988;Palmer, 1999;Pedersen & Halldén, 1992;Prinou et al, 2008;Settlage, 1994;Shtulman, 2006;Spindler & Doherty, 2009;Tamir & Zohar, 1991); first year undergraduate students (Brumby, 1979;Jensen & Finley, 1995;Nehm & Reilly, 2007;Sundberg & Dini, 1993); second year undergraduate students (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Fernández-Pérez, 1987) collective undergraduate students (Anderson et al, 2002;Bishop & Anderson, 1990;Brem et al, 2002;Chinsamy & Plagányi, 2007;Demastes et al, 1995;Ferrari & Chi, 1998;Hokayem & BouJaoude, 2008;Jensen & Finley, 1996;Meir et al, 2007;Paz-y-Mińo & Espinosa, 2009;Robbins & Roy, 2007;Shtulman, 2006;…”